Participant suggestion system

ABSTRACT

A server system hosts a plurality of conversations, each having an identified set of participants. For a respective conversation, the server accesses the conversation in which a user is a participant. The server obtains a conversation profile for the conversation, the conversation profile based on information including content of the conversation and user-specific term weights for at least a plurality of terms in the content of the conversation. The server accesses a plurality of entity profiles that are based on content and/or structure in other conversations in which the user is a participant. The server compares at least a subset of the entity profiles to the conversation profile to identify a set of entities having entity profiles that best match the conversation profile, generates a suggestion for the user including a suggested entity from the identified set of entities; and sends the suggestion to the client system for display to the user.

RELATED CASES

This application is related to U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/162,642 filed Mar. 23, 2009, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The disclosed embodiments relate generally to communication systems. More particularly, the disclosed embodiments relate to methods, systems, and user interfaces for transmitting, receiving, and rendering electronic messages and suggesting entities such as participants and categorization entities for association with the electronic messages.

BACKGROUND

A variety of electronic communications systems, including electronic email (“email”) systems and instant messaging (IM) system are well known. In both email and IM systems, individual messages can be forwarded and replied to. However, for both email and IM, responding to portions of a message or forwarding portions of a message is relatively difficult or awkward. Further, for a conversation with several levels (e.g., a conversation that includes multiple messages and responses on different topics or subtopics) it can be difficult to discern the logical context of at least some of the messages in the conversation. Similarly, the logical context of a conversation can get lost if a participant joins the conversation mid-way through.

Instant messaging is sometimes called electronic chat. A popular electronic chat program is, for example, Instant Messenger, a trademark of America Online. Electronic chat is comparable to a telephone conversation in terms of function and structure. There is generally no logical structure to an electronic chat conversation, just a timeline.

As users access electronic messages from a plurality of devices (e.g., laptop, mobile phone, electronic pager, set top box, etc.) it would be helpful to have full access to entire conversations from each of these devices, and to be able to discern the logical context, within a conversation, of each user contribution to the conversation.

Additionally, users often have a large number of contacts, labels, folders, tags and other entities that can be associated with conversations. It would be helpful to have a way to accurately suggest entities for association with the conversation to a user who is a participant in the conversation so as to improve the user experience.

SUMMARY OF DISCLOSED EMBODIMENTS

In one aspect of the method and system, a server system having one or more processors and memory, accesses a conversation in which a user is a participant, obtains a conversation profile for the conversation. The conversation profile is based on information including content of the conversation and user-specific term weights for at least a plurality of terms in the content of the conversation. The server accesses a plurality of entity profiles corresponding to the user, each entity profile corresponding to a respective entity in other conversations in which the user is a participant and based on content in said other conversations. The server compares at least a subset of the entity profiles to the conversation profile to identify a set of entities having entity profiles that best match the conversation profile, generates a suggestion including a suggested entity from the identified set of entities; and sends the suggestion to the client system for display.

In some embodiments, the user-specific term weights are stored in a user profile. In another aspect of the method and system, the server generates an entity profile and a conversation profile. The server generates an entity profile for a respective entity by selecting a subset of conversations in which the user is a participant so as to include only conversations associated with the respective entity and generating an entity vector that includes a plurality of elements, where an element in the entity vector is associated with a respective term and corresponds to a number of instances of the respective term in the set of conversations. The server generates a conversation profile for a respective conversation by generating a conversation vector including a plurality of elements, where an element in the conversation vector is associated with a respective term and corresponds to a number of instances of the respective term in the conversation, and the conversation includes a plurality of terms. In accordance with this aspect, the server compares a respective entity profile to the conversation profile by calculating a dot product of the entity vector of the respective entity profile with the conversation vector.

In some embodiments, the conversation has at least a second participant in addition to the user, and the second participant has a second conversation profile for the conversation that is based on respective term weights, for a plurality of respective terms, specific to the second participant. In some embodiments, the entity profile for a respective entity is determined based on respective user-specific term weights for a plurality of terms.

In another aspect of the method and system, the server generates entity profiles and conversation profiles by adjusting the counted occurrences based on internal structure of a respective conversation of the plurality of conversations. In accordance with this aspect, when the internal structure of the respective conversation indicates a strong connection between the user and a subset of the conversation, the counted occurrences of terms in the subset of the conversation are given greater weight than a predefined normal weight by the server. In some embodiments, the respective entity represents a contact of the user and the internal structure of the respective conversation indicates a strong connection between the contact and the user for a subset of the conversation when the subset of the conversation includes one or more of: a contribution by the contact to a subset of the respective conversation that was created by the user, a contribution by the user to a subset of the respective conversation created by the contact, and a subset of the conversation that was concurrently edited by the user and the contact.

In another aspect of the method and system, the sever accesses a conversation in which a user is a participant and obtains a conversation profile for the conversation. The conversation profile is based on information including content of the conversation. The server further accesses a plurality of entity profiles corresponding to the user. At least a subset of the entity profiles correspond to respective categorization entities in other conversations in which the user is a participant and are based on content in said other conversations. The server also compares one or more of the entity profiles to the conversation profile to identify a set of entities having entity profiles that best match the conversation profile; generates a suggestion including a suggested categorization entity from the identified set of entities; and sends the suggestion to the client system for display. In some embodiments, the categorization entities include one or more tags and one or more labels. In some embodiments, the categorization entities include one or more folders.

In another aspect of the method and system, the server accesses a conversation in which a user is a participant and obtains a conversation profile for the conversation. The conversation profile is based on information including content of the conversation. The server further accesses a plurality of entity profiles corresponding to the user. Each entity profile corresponds to a respective entity in other conversations in which the user is a participant and is based on an internal structure of content in said other conversations. The server also compares at least a subset of the entity profiles to the conversation profile to identify a set of entities having entity profiles that best match the conversation profile; generates a suggestion including a suggested entity from the identified set of entities; and sends the suggestion to the client system for display.

In another aspect of the system and method, a server system having one or more processors and memory, accesses a conversation in which a user is a participant; and obtains a conversation profile for the conversation. The conversation profile is based on information including content of the conversation. The server system further accesses a plurality of entity profiles corresponding to the user. Each entity profile corresponds to a respective entity in other conversations in which the user is a participant and is based on an internal structure of content in said other conversations. The system further compares at least a subset of the entity profiles to the conversation profile to identify a set of entities having entity profiles that best match the conversation profile; generates a suggestion including a suggested entity from the identified set of entities; and sends the suggestion to the client system for display.

In some embodiments, prior to accessing the plurality of entity profiles, the server system generates an entity profile for a respective entity based on an internal structure of content in respective ones of said other conversations. In some embodiments, when the internal structure of content of one of the respective other conversations indicates a stronger connection between the user and a subset of the respective other conversation than for other subsets of the respective other conversation, generating an entity profile for the respective entity includes giving greater weight than a predefined normal weight to content in the subset of the respective other conversation. In some embodiments, the respective entity represents a contact of the user; and the internal structure of the respective other conversation indicates a stronger connection when the subset of the respective other conversation includes one or more of: a contribution by the contact to content that was created by the user, a contribution by the user to content that was created by the contact, and content that was concurrently edited by the user and the contact. In some embodiments, the internal structure of the respective other conversation indicates a stronger connection when the subset of the respective other conversation includes one or more of: content added by the user; content edited by the user; a response from another participant to content added by the user; and recently added content.

In some embodiments, obtaining the conversation profile includes generating the conversation profile based on an internal structure of content in respective ones of said other conversations. In some embodiments, when the internal structure of the conversation indicates a stronger connection between the user and a subset of the conversation than for other subsets of the conversation, generating the conversation profile includes giving greater weight than a predefined normal weight to the subset of the conversation. In some embodiments, the respective entity represents a contact of the user; and the internal structure of the conversation indicates a stronger connection when the subset of the conversation includes one or more of: a contribution by the contact to content that was created by the user, a contribution by the user to content that was created by the contact, and content that was concurrently edited by the user and the contact. In some embodiments, the internal structure of the conversation indicates a stronger connection when the subset of the conversation includes one or more of: content added by the user; content edited by the user; a response from another participant to content added by the user; and recently added content.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Various embodiments of the invention are disclosed in the following Description of Embodiments herein, in conjunction with the following drawings in which like reference numerals refer to corresponding parts throughout the figures.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary distributed computer system according to certain embodiments of the invention.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a distributed system including a conversation server and clients coupled by one or more communication networks, according to certain embodiments of the invention.

FIGS. 3A-3C are block diagrams of data structures for a conversation database, a participant list and a conversation log, respectively, according to certain embodiments of the invention.

FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating a data structure for a user database, according to certain embodiments of the invention.

FIGS. 5A-5E are flowcharts representing a method for hosting conversations at a server, according to certain embodiments of the invention.

FIG. 6 is a block diagram of a plurality of linked conversation server systems, with mechanisms for obtaining and distributing user online presence information, according to certain embodiments of the invention.

FIG. 7 is a block diagram of a conversation server for a hosted conversation system, according to certain embodiments of the invention.

FIG. 8 is a block diagram of a client having a user who participates in one or more conversations in a hosted conversation system, according to certain embodiments of the invention.

FIGS. 9A-9B illustrate a series of windows showing successive edits to a conversation by a plurality of participants of the conversation, and playback of those edits.

FIG. 10 illustrates a series of windows showing solo and team-based drafting of a conversation.

FIGS. 11A-B are flowcharts representing a method for editing, playback and drafting of conversations hosted at a server, according to certain embodiments of the invention.

FIG. 12 illustrates a process diagram showing concurrency control between a plurality of potentially conflicting edits received from a plurality of participants.

FIG. 13 illustrates two sequences of separate edit operations, both performed on the same content unit, where one sequence is received from a first participant and a second sequence is received from a second participant in a conversation, and transforms thereupon.

FIG. 14 illustrates first and second sequences of edit operations, applied to a content unit of an electronic conversation, received from a first participant and a second participant, respectively, and transformed sequences of merged edit operations corresponding to the received first and second sequences of edit operations.

FIG. 15 is a flowchart representing a method of concurrency control at a server, and at a client, when a plurality of participants in a conversation make potentially conflicting edits to the conversation.

FIG. 16 is a block diagram of a distributed client-server computing system.

FIGS. 17A-17F are flow charts representing a method for suggesting entities to add to a conversation in accordance with some embodiments.

FIGS. 18A and 18C illustrate exemplary data structures for storing profiles in accordance with some embodiments.

FIGS. 18B and 18D are exemplary formulas for use in generating context weights for profiles in accordance with some embodiments.

Like reference numerals refer to corresponding parts throughout the drawings.

DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS

Methods, systems, user interfaces, and other aspects of the invention are described. Reference will be made to certain embodiments of the invention, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. While the invention will be described in conjunction with the embodiments, it will be understood that it is not intended to limit the invention to these particular embodiments. On the contrary, the invention is intended to cover alternatives, modifications and equivalents that are within the spirit and scope of the invention. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense.

Moreover, in the following description, numerous specific details are set forth to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. However, it will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the invention can be practiced without these particular details. In other instances, methods, procedures, components, and networks that are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art are not described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects of the present invention.

FIG. 1 is block diagram illustrating an exemplary distributed computer system 100 according to certain embodiments of the invention. Computer system 100 includes a plurality of clients 110. Users of the clients 110 (also herein called client devices or client systems) are participants 112 in conversations hosted by a set of conversation servers 130 (sometimes called a conversation server system). The clients 100 can be any of a number of computing devices (e.g., Internet kiosk, personal digital assistant, cell phone, gaming device, desktop computer, laptop computer, handheld computer, tablet computer, or combinations thereof) used to enable the activities described below. Each client 110 is coupled to a network 120, which can be any of a number of networks (e.g. Internet, intranet, local area network, wide area network, wireless network, wired network, optical network, or a combination of such networks). More generally, the clients 100 and conversation servers 130 are coupled to each other via one or more communication networks 120.

A respective client 110-B executes a client application 114 that facilitates access from the client 110 to a respective hosted conversation server 130. The client application 114 may include a graphical user interface. For example, the client application may be a web browser or other browser application, such as Firefox (trademark of Mozilla Foundation), Internet Explorer (trademark of Microsoft Corporation), Safari (trademark of Apple Inc.), or Chrome (trademark of Google Inc.).

While a system 100 may have a single conversation server 130, in other embodiments the system 100 may have multiple conversation servers 130. For example, multiple conversation servers 130-A and 130-B may be hosted by different service providers, such as providers 116-A and 116-B respectively. In some embodiments, the providers are internet service providers (ISPs) providing a conversation service. Alternately, some or all of the providers may be dedicated conversation providers. When the system 100 includes multiple conversation servers 130, the conversation servers 130 may be coupled together directly, or by a local area network (LAN), or via the network 120.

The conversation server(s) 130 host conversations between participants 112. More specifically, each conversation server 130 hosts conversations on behalf of a set of users. At least some of those users are subscribers of the hosted conversation system 100 and thus have user accounts. As described in more detail below, some of the conversation participants need not be subscribers of the hosted conversation system. When new content is added to a conversation by any participant, or any other changes are made to a conversation by any participant, the updates are sent to all the conversation servers 130 that host conversations for the participants in the conversation. Those host servers, in turn, send the updates to the clients 110 being used participants in the conversation. The conversation updates may be sent relatively instantaneously (e.g., within a second or two) to the clients 110 of active participants in the conversation. Optionally, clients 110 of passive participants 112 who are online and logged into the conversation system 100, but who are not currently viewing the conversation or are not current participating in the conversation, receive information that the conversation has been updated, without receiving the updates to the conversation. In at least some embodiments, when the participant “opens” the conversation (selects it for viewing), the updated conversation is downloaded to the participant's client from conversation server 130 that hosts conversations for that user.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram of system 200 illustrating exemplary embodiments of a conversation server 130 and client systems 210 and 220. System 200 includes a communications network 120, as described above, coupled between a conversation server 130 and a plurality of the clients, including client 210. Client 210 corresponds to a respective client 110 of FIG. 1, and is sometime herein called a “participant client” because the user of client 110/210 is a participant in one or more conversations hosted by the conversation server 130. System 200 includes at least one participant client 210. Participant client 210 optionally includes a browser 212, such as a web browser, or other client application to facilitate participant interaction with a respective conversation server 130. The browser 212 typically includes (or controls) a virtual machine (e.g., a Java virtual machine) for executing software embedded in web pages and other documents rendered by the browser 212. In some embodiments, the browser 212 executes a conversation application 214 that is embedded, at least in part, in a web page. The web page (which may be called a “hosted conversation web page”) is downloaded from a server, such as a conversation server 130, to the client 210 and includes executable instructions that are executed by the virtual machine of the browser 212 in the client 210. The browser 212 and conversation application 214 together form the client application 114 of FIG. 1. The conversation application 214 facilitates participant interaction with the conversation server system 130.

In some other embodiments, conversation application 214 is a plug-in or extension of the browser application 212.

System 200 optionally includes non-subscriber clients 220. Non-subscriber clients 220 enable users who do not have accounts in the conversation system to participate, in at least a limited manner, in hosted conversations. Participation in hosted conversations may be limited in a number of ways, for example by allowing the user of a non-subscriber client to read the content of a conversation, and allowing the user to contribute new content, but not allowing the user of the non-subscriber client to use other features such as editing content already in the conversation, responding to specific portions of content previously contributed by other participants, and playing back a conversation.

Non-subscriber clients 220 access the conversation server system 130 in a manner that is distinct from the manner used by clients 210 whose users are subscribers of the hosted conversation system. An example of a non-subscriber client 220 is a weblog (“blog”) server 226, having a weblog client 228. As described below, a hosted conversation can include a weblog 228 (also called a weblog client) as a participant in the conversation, in which case content of the hosted conversation is published in the weblog. The published conversation is visible on the weblog 228, which is hosted by the weblog server 226. More specifically, when a weblog 228 is added as a participant to a conversation, content of the conversation is transmitted to (also called “posted to”) the weblog 228 by the conversation server 130 that hosts the conversation. After the weblog 228 is added as a participant, new content added to the conversation is also transmitted to the weblog 228 by the conversation server 130 that hosts the conversation. A user (e.g., a user of another client 110, FIG. 1) who views content of the weblog 228 (e.g., by visiting a URL associated with the weblog 228, hosted on the weblog server 226) can view content of the conversation published on the weblog.

Another example of a non-subscriber client 220 is an email server 224, having email clients 222. Content from host conversations can be sent to one or more email clients 222 of one or more email servers 224. In particular, when the user of an email client 222 is added as a participant to a conversation, content of the conversation (and content subsequently added to the conversation) is transmitted to the email client 222 by the conversation server 130 that hosts the conversation.

Weblogs and email servers are also examples of “automated clients.” Other examples of automated clients include services, such as archival services, translation services, spell-check and grammar-check services, that may be invoked to provide services to other participants of a hosted conversation.

In some embodiments, email clients 222 and weblog clients 228 can read but cannot provide content to a hosted conversation, and thus are just observers. However, in some other embodiments, authoring capabilities (the ability to provide content to a conversation) are provided to at least some “email participants” (i.e., users of email clients) or “weblog participants” (i.e., weblog clients).

In some embodiments, a conversation server 130 includes a front-end or conversation engine 246 for managing conversations and communications with clients, and one or more auxiliary services (modules, applications or servers) 250 for managing services related to conversations. In some embodiments, auxiliary services 250 include spell checking 252, language translation or localization 256, and managing attachments 258 to conversations. Conversation server 130 also includes online presence services 248, enabling users to know the online status of other users (e.g., other subscribers of the hosted conversation system), as described in detail below with reference to FIG. 6. Server 130 includes a user database 270, described in detail below with reference to FIG. 4.

The front-end or conversation engine 246 utilizes (or, alternately includes) an update, access and search/query engine 260 to provide participant access to conversations, and to provide search functions in conversations. In some embodiments, one or more conversation indexes 264 are inverse indexes, mapping words or terms in conversations to the conversations in which they occur. The one or more conversation indexes 264 are used to find conversations in a hosted conversation database 262 that match specified search queries. As content is added to conversations in the conversation database 262 the one or more conversation indexes 264 are updated with that content so as to make the added content accessible by the execution of search queries. The conversation database 262 is described in more detail below with reference to FIG. 3.

Optionally, conversation server 130 includes an SMTP gateway 242 for facilitating email communication with one or more email servers 224.

In the discussion below, a subscriber is a user for whom a conversation server 130 (e.g., any conversation server 130 in a set of conversation servers 130 that provide conversation services) maintains a user record or profile (see 402, FIG. 4, as described below).

As described in more detail below, in some embodiments, the conversation server 130 maintains for a respective user/subscriber a list 414 (FIG. 4) of conversations in which the user/subscriber is a participant. The conversation server 130 updates the status (conversation state 438-1, FIG. 4) of each such conversation in the user's conversation list 414 when the state of the respective conversation changes. When (e.g., in response to a search/query from the user) the conversation server 130 sends to the user a requested list of conversations (typically comprising a subset of the complete set of conversations in which the user is a participant), the list includes status information for the listed conversations. The status information in the returned list is generally a subset of the conversation state 438, as only a portion of the conversation state (e.g., whether there is any content in the conversation that has not yet been viewed by the user) is needed when displaying the list of conversations.

FIG. 3A is a block diagram illustrating exemplary data structures for conversation database 262. While most conversations have a single set of participants that share all the content of the conversation, some conversations, herein called waves or conversation containers, have a more complicated structure. In particular, a first conversation can result in any number of “side conversations” by various subsets of the participants in the first conversation, and can even include additional participants. For example, a conversation container or wave can be used by two or more teams of participants (e.g., Team A and Team B) to negotiate an agreement, or to co-edit a document or presentation or the like. To accommodate the needs of all the participants, an initial conversation (sometimes called the primary conversation or master conversation) is started among all the participants, and then “private conversations” are spawned off the initial conversation to enable participants in each of the teams to communicate privately with other participants of the team, while still having access to all of the content of the initial conversation. Typically, each private conversation has a set of participants that excludes at least one participant in the primary conversation. Optionally, a private conversation can include one or more additional participants (e.g., a consultant) who is not a participant in the primary conversation. Each participant only has access to the content of the conversations in which they are a participant. Typically, the participants on Team A have access to the content of both the Team A private conversation and the primary conversation, and the participants on Team B have access to the content of both the Team B private conversation and the primary conversation.

FIG. 3A is a block diagram of exemplary data structures that support both simple conversations (i.e., single conversations with no related private conversations) as well as waves or conversation containers that include multiple conversations (sometimes called a primary conversation and one or more sub-conversations).

Conversation database 262 includes a plurality of wave records 302-1 to 302-N, each containing the data for a wave or conversation container. When a respective wave has only one conversation, the only information in the corresponding wave record 302 is for the single conversation, as represented by one conversation record 310. More generally, a wave record 302 includes one or more conversation records 310-1 to 310-C. Each conversation record 310 contains data for a respective conversation, including:

-   -   wave identifier 329, which uniquely identifies the wave (i.e.,         conversation container) in the conversation system 110/200 that         corresponds to the wave record 302;     -   conversation identifier 330, which in combination with the wave         identifier 329 uniquely identifies the conversation in the         conversation system 100/200 that corresponds to the conversation         record 310 (i.e., a conversation can only be associated with a         single wave);     -   conversation metadata 322;     -   conversation log 324 (sometimes called the history log); and     -   one or more content contributions 326-1 to 326-n; and     -   a history log 360.

Conversation metadata 322 is metadata for the conversation corresponding to the conversation record 310 and identified by conversation identifier 310. In some embodiments, the conversation metadata 322 includes a conversation creation timestamp 331 (indicating the date and time the conversation was created), and a list of participants 332 (described in more detail in FIG. 3B) for the conversation. The metadata 322 may optionally include other metadata, such as metadata identifying tags 325 (e.g., system and/or user assigned labels that are “public,” and thus available to all participants in the conversation) associated with the conversation, and other characteristics of the respective conversation associated with the conversation record 310.

When a wave contains more than one conversation, the participant list 332 for the primary conversation of the wave will typically include all the participants in all the conversations in the wave. However, in some embodiments, private conversations (i.e., conversations other than the primary conversation) in the wave can have additional participants that are not participants of the primary conversation. Furthermore, as indicated above, each of the private conversations in a wave will typically have a participant list 332 does not include at least one of the participants in the primary conversation of the same wave.

In addition, when a wave contains more than one conversation, a parent ID/insertion position 333 is provided for each of the private conversations, but not for the primary conversation. The parent ID/insertion position 333 identifies the parent of the private conversation, as well as the position in the identified parent conversation at which content of the private conversation should be inserted when viewed by participants of the private conversation. Typically the parent of a private conversation is the primary conversation of the wave, but in some instances the parent of a private conversation can be another parent conversation that is higher up in the hierarchy (or graph) of conversations in the wave. When a participant of a private conversation views the wave that includes the private conversation, the content of both the parent conversation and the private conversation will be seen (assuming the participant is also a participant of the parent conversation). In the less common situation, in which a user is a participant of a private conversation, but is not a participant in the parent conversation, the user will see only the content of the conversation (or conversations) in the wave for which they are a participant.

In some embodiments, the conversation log 324 (FIG. 3C) records all changes to the conversation, including changes to the content of the conversation as well as to the set of participants and other characteristics of the conversation. The conversation log 324 is accessed when participants ask to see the state of the conversation, or a content unit of the conversation, at one or more points in time. For example, the conversation log 324 can be used to reconstruct or review the sequence of edits made to a content unit of the conversation. This is sometimes called “playing back” or “playback” of the conversation. Playback of a conversation can be performed in a variety of ways, including time forward or time backward, and showing updates to just a portion of the conversation or to the entire conversation.

A respective content contribution 326 (also called a content unit, or “blip”) in a conversation can be a message, much like an email message or instant message. Other content contributions 326 in a conversation can be documents (e.g., a report, meeting agenda, etc.), pictures, presentations, audio files, video files, or virtually any other type of electronic document or content. In some embodiments, there are few if any distinctions between email messages and other types of content contributions to a conversation. In some embodiments, the data in a conversation record 310 for each content contribution 326 includes:

-   -   a content identifier 342 (e.g., a value uniquely identifying the         content contribution, either globally within the conversation         system, or locally within a particular conversation);     -   content unit metadata 346, identifying characteristics of the         content contribution 326;     -   optionally, one or more attachments 344 (e.g., pictures, videos,         documents, files, archives, audio, animations, links, etc.); and     -   the content 349 (e.g., text, images, document content, etc.) of         the content contribution 326.

In some embodiments, content unit metadata 346 for a content unit 326 includes:

-   -   a first timestamp 341-1 denoting the date and time the content         unit was first created (added to the conversation), and a         corresponding sequence number 343-1 corresponding to the state         of the conversation when the content unit was first created;     -   a last timestamp 341-2 denoting the last date and time that the         content unit was edited, and a corresponding sequence number         343-2 corresponding to the state of the conversation when the         last edit to the content unit was made; having both the first         and last timestamps and sequence numbers is useful (for example)         when playing back changes to the content unit, or when playing         back changes to a portion of the conversation that includes the         content unit; and     -   identifiers 352 (e.g., participant addresses) of the content         unit's contributors or author(s), optionally ordered by the         order of first contributions of each author to the content unit;         while most content units have a single author, content units can         be written collaboratively, in which case they have multiple         authors.

In some embodiments, the metadata 346 for a content unit 326 also includes one or more of the following:

-   -   parent identifier 354 provides an identifier of or pointer to         the parent content unit to which this content contribution is a         response or reply;     -   position 350 provides an indicator of the position of this         content unit in a conversation); the position 350 may be used to         govern how the content unit is displayed when displaying two or         more content units of the conversation; and     -   optionally, siblings 358 of this content contribution (i.e.,         identifiers or pointers to sibling content units, which are         other responses or replies to the parent of this content unit).

Typically, the metadata 346 for a content unit 326 includes at least one value (e.g., position 350 or parent identifier 354) that identifies or represents the position of the content unit 326 in the conversation.

A conversation index 264 (see FIG. 2) enables fast access to conversations in the conversation database 262 through searches of the index.

FIG. 3B is a block diagram illustrating data structures for the participant list 332 in the conversation metadata 322 (FIG. 3A) of a conversation record 310. A participant list 332 includes a plurality of participant records 362, one for each participant in a respective conversation. In some embodiments, each participant record 362 includes the following information, or a subset of the following information:

-   -   a conversation identifier 371;     -   a participant address 372, which may also be called a         participant identifier; the participant address uniquely         identifies the participant among all the participants in         conversations in the conversation system 100 (FIG. 1);     -   a per-user conversation state 373; for example, the conversation         state 373 may indicate the read/unread state 374 of this         conversation with regard to the respective participant         corresponding to participant record 362; the conversation state         372 may include information about which content contributions in         the conversation have been viewed by the participant, and which         have not yet been viewed;     -   the conversation state 373 for a conversation participant may         include flags 376; optionally, the flags 376 may include an         ignore flag 377 (also sometimes called the mute flag), which if         present, indicates that the participant has instructed the         conversation system not to notify the participant of updates to         the conversation;     -   the conversation state 373 for a conversation participant may         include private labels (sometimes called “folders” or “folder         designations”) 378 assigned by this participant to this         conversation, which are for use only by this participant (e.g.,         when searching for conversations, the participant can include a         private label as one of the query terms); private labels can e         applied by participants to help organize their conversations and         to make it easy to locate conversations based, in part, on what         labels have been applied to them; it is noted that tags 325 are         public information, available to all participants in a         conversation, while the private labels of each participant are         private to that participant;

the conversation state 373 for a conversation participant may include a viewpoint pointer 379, which indicates either the portion of the conversation currently being viewed by the participant (and the position of the user's cursor within a respective content unit if the user is entering or editing a content unit), or the portion of the conversation last viewed by the participant if the participant is not currently displaying or viewing the conversation;

-   -   optionally, other metadata related to this respective         participant with respect to this particular conversation.

Another optional flag 376 in the per-user conversation state 373 for a respective participant is a reminder flag. When included in the per-user conversation state 373, the per-user conversation state 373 also includes a corresponding timestamp indicating the date and time (or pair of timestamps to indicate a range of dates/times) at which to reminder the participant to pay attention to the conversation or a portion thereof, optionally a user ID identifying the user who initiated the reminder (in some embodiments, reminders can be sent by a user not only to themselves, but to other participant(s) in the conversation), and optionally a content range indicator for specifying a portion of the conversation that is the subject of the reminder.

Another optional flag 376 in the per-user conversation state 373 for a respective participant is a ping flag. A ping flag is included in the per-user conversation state 373 when another participant has sent a ping (which is a form of notification, or instant message) to the participant (typically an online participant), or when the participant has sent a ping to another participant. The ping flag, when present, indicates to the client application that a ping notification (e.g., a pop-up box) is to be displayed.

Much of the information (e.g., conversation state 373) in each participant record 362 is private to that participant and is not shared with other participants of the conversation or other users in the conversation system. In some embodiments, the cursor position (see 379, FIG. 3B) of each participant who is actively editing a content unit or entering new text in a conversation is published to and visible to other participants of the conversation, unless a respective participant has elected to suppress publication of their cursor position, in which case that aspect of the participant's conversation state 373 is not considered to be private to the participant. When there are a plurality of active participants who are editing the same conversation, cursor position information for each of the active participants is transmitted to the clients of the active participants (via their hosting conversation servers). At the client of a respective participant, a plurality of cursor positions (corresponding to a plurality of different participants) are concurrently displayed when the cursor positions are sufficiently close to each other to enable concurrent display.

As described above, in some embodiments, for each respective conversation record 310, the server 140 maintains for each respective participant 362 a conversation state 373 of the respective conversation in regard to the respective participant. The server 130 provides to the respective participant (e.g., to a client that is displaying the conversation to the participant) the state of the respective conversation in regard to the respective participant. In some embodiments, this includes providing to the participant (e.g., to the client being used by the participant) the read status of the content units of the respective conversation in regard to the participant (i.e., indicating which content units have already been read or viewed (in their current state) by the participant, and which have not). In some embodiments, providing the conversation state 373 of the respective conversation in regard to the respective participant includes providing labels 378, specified by the respective participant for the respective conversation.

In some embodiments, providing the state 373 of the respective conversation in regard to the respective participant includes providing, in accordance with instructions from the participant, metadata (e.g., ignore flag 377) to ignore the respective conversation. This provides a participant with an option to manage conversations in accordance with a rule, in effect to archive conversations, and to reduce congestion in a conversation viewer. For example, when a participant marks a conversation with a system defined label of “ignore” or “mute,” the ignore status flag 377 for the participant (for the marked conversation) is set, and the conversation is thereafter treated (on behalf of this particular participant) much like an archived message or conversation. Other participants of the conversation may continue to see the conversation in their list of active conversations if they have not marked the conversation with the “ignore” label.

In some embodiments, the per-user conversation state 373 for each participant of each hosted conversation is stored in the conversation database 262, as shown in FIG. 3A. In other embodiments, the per-user conversation state 373 for each participant of each hosted conversation is stored in the user database 400, discussed below. In yet other embodiments, per-user conversation state 373 information (for each participant of each hosted conversation) is stored in a separate database or server (sometimes called the “user supplement” database or server) that is separate from the conversation database 262 and user database 400. Optionally, pointers to per-user conversation state 373 information (e.g., record) in the user supplement database may be stored in the user database 400 and conversation database 262. Alternately, such pointers are not stored, and the per-user conversation state 373 for a particular user of a respective conversation is retrieved, typically for transmission to a client participating in the conversation, from the user supplement database on an as-needed basis and is updated in accordance with operations (e.g., reading content, entering end content, editing content, etc.) performed by the participant.

As described in more detail below, in some embodiments, the conversation server 130 stores, for each respective subscriber, a contact list (416, described in FIG. 4) associated with the respective subscriber. In some embodiments, the contact list is stored in a user database 270 (FIG. 2) or 400 (FIG. 4).

When a conversation is sent to a client for display to a user, the client receives only a portion of the conversation record 310 (FIG. 3A) for the conversation. For example, in some embodiments, the portion of the conversation record 310 sent to and stored at the client excludes the conversation log 324, and the conversation state 373 of other participants (except, the cursor position of other currently active participants in the conversation who have not blocked the transmission of their cursor position). In some embodiments, the conversation log 324 is sent to a client 110 only when the participant at that client has requested playback of the conversation, or a user-specified portion of the conversation, or has requested to view the state of the conversation at a particular time or point in the past.

FIG. 3C is a block diagram illustrating data structures for the conversation log 324, according to some embodiments. The conversation log 324 includes an time ordered sequence of log records 385-1 to 385-C (sometimes called log entries). A respective log record 385 includes a content ID 386, identifying the content unit (if any) updated by the conversation edits recorded in the log record 385, metadata 388 relevant to the conversation edits recorded in the log record, references 394 (e.g., one or more pointers or file names) to any attachments added to the conversation by the conversation edits recorded in the log record, and a list of the conversation edits or changes 396 recorded in the log record. The metadata 388 includes a timestamp 389 and/or sequence number that uniquely identifies the order of the conversation edits in the log record, relative to the conversation edits in other log records for the same conversation. The metadata 388 also identifies a list of authors (also called contributors) 390 of the conversation edits in the log record, and the starting position 392 of the conversation edits recorded in the log record 385. While the authors list 390 will contain only one author for most log records 385, when multiple authors make edits or contribute content to a content unit during a short period of time, or during overlapping time periods, a single corresponding log record 385 includes a list 390 of all of the authors who contributed to the change in the content unit recorded by that log record 385. In some embodiments, the starting position 392 is incorporated into the conversation edits 396, as an offset or position setting for the first edit or update operation of the conversation edits 396, and in those embodiments the log records do not have a separate starting position 392 field.

FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating a data structure for a user database 400, according to certain embodiments of the invention. The database 400 includes a plurality of user records 402. In some embodiments, each user record 402 includes:

-   -   a user identifier 410 for a subscriber of the hosted         conversation system;     -   user metadata 412, containing information about or for the user;     -   a list of conversations 414 in which the user is a participant;     -   the user's contact list 416 (typically a list of contacts 416         that corresponds to and is personal to user);     -   optionally, labels 418 defined by the user for labeling or         classifying conversations;     -   optionally, a client device identifier and/or type 420 of a         client device being used by the user to communicate with the         conversation server, or alternately, the identifier and type of         client devices that the user has used in conjunction with the         conversation server in the past; in some embodiments, the type         of the client (e.g., desktop, cell phone, etc.) may be used to         determine what content from conversations is sent to the user;     -   optionally, preferences 422 of the user when participating in a         conversation 422;     -   optionally, an inverse index 424 associated with the user;     -   a current online status 426 of the user (e.g., offline, online,         busy, away, etc.);     -   authentication information 428 for the user (e.g., username,         password, and optionally other values for authentication of the         user);     -   optionally, other data relating to the user, such as one or more         blog URLs 430, email addresses 432, etc.

The conversation list 414 associated with a user includes a plurality of user-conversation records 434, each record relating to a conversation in which the user is a participant. Each user-conversation record 434 includes:

-   -   a conversation identifier 436 that identifies the respective         conversation, and     -   per-user conversation state information 438, which may be the         same as (or a pointer to) the conversation state 373 in the         participant record 362 of a conversation record 310. As         discussed above, in some embodiments, per-user conversation         state information is stored in a separate database or server         (sometimes called the user supplement database or server), in         which case the user-conversation record 434 includes a         conversation identifier 436, but not the per-user conversation         state information 438.

As noted above, in some embodiments the system includes a separate per-user inverse index 424 for each user of the system; each such index 424 is an index that maps the terms, labels, tags, etc. of the conversations in which a user is participant to the conversations (and optionally, to the content units with the conversations, or locations within the conversations) containing those terms, labels, tags, etc. These per-user indices enable fast indexing and fast searching of the conversations in which a user is a participant. In some embodiments, additional indices (sometimes called “big wave” indices) are used to provide fast indexing and access to “big wave” conversations having large numbers (e.g., more than a threshold number, such as 500 or 100) of participants. In these embodiments, the content of “big wave” conversations is not indexed in the per-user inverse indices 424, and is instead indexed in one or more “big wave” indices. Similarly, in some embodiments in which groups of users participate in conversations as groups, additional per-group indices are used to index those conversations and to provide fast searching of those conversations; and the conversations (if any) in which a respective user participates only as a group member are not included in the user's per-user inverse index 424. Thus, when a user performs a search for conversations satisfying a user-specified query, multiple indices may be searched, in which case the search results from the multiple indices are merged prior to returning the search results to the requesting user.

In some embodiments, server 130 provides the same content of a conversation to all participants of the conversation, and provides each online participant with online presence information for the other participants in the same conversation. In some embodiments, the server allows a participant of a conversation to disable publication of their online presence information to other participants in the conversation. In some embodiments, the server allows a participant of a conversation to selectively enable publication of their online presence information to other participants in the conversation (e.g., allowing publication of the participant's online presence only to users designated by the participant; or alternately, disabling publication of the participant's online presence to users specifically designated by the participant).

In some embodiments, server 130 provides the same content to each participant, formats content of the conversation to be compatible with one or more content types that a client device 110 associated with a respective participant has been configured to receive, and transmits the formatted content to the client device.

In some embodiments, when delivering the content of a conversation to certain clients (e.g., a cell phone or PDA), conversation server 130 formats the content by compressing multimedia data associated with the content (e.g., to reduce bandwidth requirements). In some embodiments, the server provides a subset of multimedia data associated with the content (e.g., a thumbnail image, or short audio/video clip) to the client. In some embodiments, the conversation server removes multimedia data associated with the content (e.g., strips out multimedia and just provides text) that is delivered to the client.

In some embodiments, the conversation server 130 authenticates a user using authentication information 428 prior to providing content from conversations to the user.

In some embodiments, the conversation server 130 sends content from conversations in which a respective user is a participant to a weblog (e.g., weblog server 226 or weblog client 228), specified (e.g., by Blog URL 430) in the user record 402 for that user. When a respective participant in a conversation is an automated client, content of the conversation is sent to the automated client. The automated client may be a weblog, an email server or account, or a service provider such as a translation service, spelling checking service, or the like.

FIGS. 5A-5E are flowcharts representing methods for hosting conversations at a server, according to certain embodiments of the invention. These methods are governed by instructions that are stored in a computer readable storage medium and that are executed by one or more processors of one or more servers. Each of the operations shown in FIGS. 5A-5E may correspond to instructions stored in a computer memory or computer readable storage medium. The computer readable storage medium may include a magnetic or optical disk storage device, solid state storage devices such as Flash memory, or other non-volatile memory device or devices. The computer readable instructions stored on the computer readable storage medium are in source code, assembly language code, object code, or other instruction format that is executed or interpreted by one or more processors.

FIG. 5A shows a method 500 for hosting conversations at a server. A server hosts (502) a plurality of conversations, each having an identified set of participants. The server is typically one of a plurality of servers that hosts conversations in a hosted conversation system.

The server provides (506) the same content from a conversation to all the participants of the conversation. In some embodiments, the server also provides (508) online presence information of each of the plurality of participants in the conversation to other participants in the conversation. The server receives (510) content from each of a plurality of participants of the conversation and transmits the received content to the other participants of the plurality of participants.

The server provides (512), upon an additional participant being added to the conversation, the same content of the conversation to the additional participant as provided to the identified set of participants, and adds the additional participant to the identified set of participants. As noted above, when the additional participant is using a client capable of receiving the entire content of the conversation, the entire content of the conversation is sent to the client currently being used by the additional participant. As a result, a participant added to a conversation, even long after the conversation has begun, receives content contributed to the conversation before the participant was added to the conversation.

In some embodiments, the server formats (514) content of the conversation to be compatible with one or more content types that a client device associated with a respective participant has been configured to receive, and transmits the formatted content to the client device. In some embodiments, the server formats content from a conversation by performing at least one of: compressing multimedia data associated with the content, providing a subset of multimedia data associated with the content, and removing multimedia data associated with the content (e.g., removing video and audio data but leaving text content).

In some embodiments, the server receives (518) a search request (often called a query or search query) from a participant, and provides to the participant a search result, including content from at least one of the plurality of conversations, in response to the search request. Alternately, or in addition, in response to the received search request the server provides (520) to the participant a search result that includes a list of one or more conversations that match the search request. In some embodiments, the search request is processed by query engine 260 (FIG. 2), using an inverse index 264 of conversation content to identify conversations, or content within one or more conversations, that match the search request.

FIG. 5B shows a continuation of the method 500 of FIG. 5A. A server maintains (530) for each respective participant a state of the respective conversation in regard to the respective participant, and provides to the respective participant (e.g., to the client currently being used by the participant to view the conversation) the state of the respective conversation in regard to the respective participant. In some embodiments, this includes providing (532) to the participant (e.g., to the client being used by the participant) the read status of the content units of the respective conversation in regard to the participant (i.e., indicating which content units have already been read or viewed by the participant, and which have not). In some embodiments, providing (534) the state of the respective conversation in regard to the respective participant includes providing labels, if any, specified by the respective participant for the respective conversation.

In some embodiments, the metadata maintained for a conversation with respect to a particular participant includes (536) metadata to ignore the respective conversation, in accordance with instructions from the participant. For example, the ignore metadata may be provided to the search engine 260 (FIG. 2) of the conversation server. In some embodiments, the server provides (538) formatting information corresponding to the conversation state, the formatting information for use when displaying the conversation or portions thereof. In some embodiments, the formatting information includes one or more of: color (e.g., of text, background, borders), font, indenting, position (e.g., superscript or subscript), etc.

In some embodiments, the server stores (540), for each respective participant, a contact list associated with the respective participant.

In some embodiments, the server verifies (542) (using authentication information 428) that the participant is authorized to receive the content of a conversation, prior to providing content to a participant.

In some embodiments, the server maintains (544) a set of participants of a respective conversation, including one or more subscribers of the server system and an email participant identified by an email address.

In some embodiments, the server maintains (546) a set of participants of a respective conversation, including one or more subscribers of the conversation system hosted by the server and a weblog on which content of the conversation is posted.

FIG. 5C shows a continuation of the method 500 of FIG. 5A. In some embodiments, the server maintains (550) for a respective user (of the conversation system hosted by a set of servers that includes the server) a list of conversations in which the user is a participant. The server updates a status of each such conversation in the list when a state of the respective conversation changes. Upon request from the user (e.g., from a client being used by the user) the server sends to the user a list comprising at least a portion of the list of conversations in which the user is a participant, the list including status information for the listed conversations. In some embodiments, each respective user for which the server maintains (552) a list of conversations is a subscriber of the hosted conversation system.

FIG. 5D shows a method 560 of hosting electronic messages. A server hosts (562) a plurality of conversations. The server provides (564) content of the conversation to a plurality of clients associated with participants of the conversation, including providing to each client all content of the conversation that the client has been configured to receive.

The server receives (566) content from respective participants of the conversation and transmits to the clients associated with other participants of the conversation at least a portion of the received content. The server also provides (568), upon an additional participant being added to the conversation, to a client associated with the additional participant all content of the conversation that the client associated with the additional participant has been configured to receive.

FIG. 5E shows a method 570 of hosting electronic messages. For at least one of a plurality of servers, each associated with a different subset of users, a server hosts (572) conversations initiated by the respective subset of users. The server receives (574) content from respective participants of the conversation and makes the content available to other participants of the conversation. For participants associated with other conversation servers, the content is transmitted to those other conversation servers. The content is transmitted to the participants when they log in and request the content of the conversation.

The server also provides (576), upon an additional participant being added to the conversation, all the content of the conversation to a client associated with the additional participant, or alternately, all content of the conversation that the client associated with the additional participant has been configured to receive. In some embodiments, the server provides (578) a uniform view of the conversation to a plurality of the participants.

FIG. 6 is a block diagram of a conversation system 600 having a plurality of linked conversation servers 130, according to certain embodiments of the invention. FIG. 6 illustrates a logical coupling of the conversation servers 130 to each other and to clients for monitoring and reporting the online status (presence) of the system's users. The network 600 includes conversation servers 130-A, 130-B, and 130-C. The conversation system 600 may include more or fewer conversation servers than shown in FIG. 6. Each conversation server 130 hosts conversations for a set of users 138. (For example, each conversation server 130 may host conversations initiated by hundreds or even thousands of users.) Conversation server 130-A is assigned users 138-A; conversation server 130-B is assigned users 138-B; and conversation server 130-N is assigned users 138-N. Each conversation server 130 includes a respective status monitor 134 (134-A, 134-B, 134-N) and a respective status collector 136 (136-A, 136-B, 136-N).

Whenever a user changes online status (e.g., goes from offline to online, by logging into the conversation system), the change in status is detected by a respective status monitor 134 (e.g., a status monitor in the conversation server 130 assigned to the user). The status monitor 134 at the conversation server to which the user is assigned receives a message or otherwise detects the change in online status of that user to “online” (or “active,” “busy,” or whatever status is appropriate). Furthermore, the status collector 136 at the conversation server gathers the online status of the contacts in that user's contact list 416. While some of the contacts in the user's contact list may be assigned to the same conversation server, other contacts in the user's contact list are assigned to other conversation servers.

The status collector 136 of the conversation server to which the user is assigned gathers the online status of the user's contacts, including those assigned to other conversation servers, and forwards at least a portion of the collected status information to the user (i.e., to the client device or system currently being used by the user). In some embodiments, the status collector broadcasts requests for status information of the user's contacts to the other conversation servers, and the conversation servers to which the contacts are assigned respond to the requests. In some other embodiments, the status collector determines the conversation servers to which the contacts are assigned and sends requests for status information to those conversation servers. In some embodiments, the assignments of users to conversation servers may be determined by reference to an index of all users, a copy of which may be stored in all of the conversation servers or a subset thereof.

For example, if a user A1 of users 138-A, assigned to conversation server 130-A, changes online status from offline to online, a client application at the client being used by the user A1 sends a message to the conversation system 600 announcing that user A1 is online. The status monitor 134-A at the conversation server 130-A receives the message and updates the status of the user A1 to online. The status monitors 134 of other conversation servers either do not receive this message, or ignore it because the user A1 is not assigned to those other conversation servers. The status collector 136-A at the conversation server 130-A obtains a list of the contacts for the user A1 (e.g., by accessing contact list 416 for user A1). Using that list of contacts, the status collector 136-A gathers status information from the conversation servers to which the contacts are assigned. Thus, if a contact is assigned to conversation server 130-A, then the status collector 136-A accesses the contact's status information stored at conversation server 130-A. If a contact is assigned to conversation server 130-B, then server 130-A communicates with conversation server 132-0 to get the status information. A similar procedure occurs if a respective contact is assigned to conversation server 130-C.

FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating a conversation server 700 (also sometimes called a conversation system or a conversation server system) in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. The conversation server 700 includes one or more processing units (CPU's) 702, one or more network or other communications interfaces 704, memory 706, and one or more communication buses 708 for interconnecting these components. The communication buses 708 may include circuitry (sometimes called a chipset) that interconnects and controls communications between system components. The conversation server 700 optionally includes (but typically does not include) a user interface having a display device and a keyboard.

Memory 706 includes high-speed random access memory, such as DRAM, SRAM, DDR RAM or other random access solid state memory devices; and may include non-volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic disk storage devices, optical disk storage devices, flash memory devices, or other non-volatile solid state storage devices. Memory 706 may optionally include one or more storage devices remotely located from the CPU(s) 702. Memory 706, or alternately the non-volatile memory device(s) within memory 706, includes a computer readable storage medium. In some embodiments, memory 706 or the computer readable storage medium of memory 706 stores the following programs, modules and data structures, or a subset thereof:

-   -   an operating system 710 that includes procedures for handling         various basic system services and for performing hardware         dependent tasks;     -   a network communication module 712 that is used for connecting         the conversation server 700 to other computers via the one or         more communication network interfaces 704 and one or more         communication networks, such as the Internet, other wide area         networks, local area networks, metropolitan area networks, and         so on; and     -   a conversation engine 714 that provides hosted conversation         services on the server 700 for a plurality of users; in some         embodiments, the conversation engine 714 corresponds to element         246 of FIG. 2.

The conversation engine 714 may include the following modules, or a subset thereof:

-   -   a search/access module 716 (in some embodiments, this         corresponds to element 260 of FIG. 2), for performing searches         of the conversation database 726; the searches of the         conversation database 726 may include user-specified searches         718 as well as server-specified searches 720 (e.g., a search for         conversations in a user's inbox);     -   a user database 722 (in some embodiments, this corresponds to         element 270 of FIG. 2 and element 400 of FIG. 4), for storing         information pertaining to users of the system;     -   user database management modules 724, for managing the user         database 722 (e.g., for creating new user records, and for         updating existing user records);     -   conversation database 726 (in some embodiments, this corresponds         to element 262 of FIG. 2 and FIG. 3);     -   conversation management modules 728, for managing the         conversation database 726; and     -   auxiliary services module(s) 250; as noted above, each         particular auxiliary service provided in a hosted conversation         system may be provided by modules within a conversation server         700, or by other servers.

In some embodiments, the conversation management modules 728 include the following modules, or a subset thereof:

-   -   a set of conversation update modules 730, for updating a         conversation with changes made by one or more participants,         including one or more of: an add/delete content module 732, for         adding or removing content from a conversation; a split content         contribution module 734, for splitting a content contribution         (326, FIG. 3A) in a conversation into two or more separate         content contributions; a cooperative editing module 736, for         enabling simultaneous editing of a conversation or a content         contribution (unit of content) by a plurality of participants;         and an add new participant to conversation module 738, for         adding a new participant to a conversation;     -   content playback module 740, for playing back edits to a         conversation or document (or a user-specified portion of the         conversation or document);     -   content formatting module 742, for formatting content to match a         configuration of a client; (the configuration of a client for a         respective user may be specified by an element 420, FIG. 4, of         the user record 402 for the respective user);     -   content publication to email module 744, for publishing content         of a conversation to an email address; the email address may be         specified by an element 432, FIG. 4, of the user record 402 for         the respective user;     -   content publication to weblog (“blog”) module 746 for publishing         content of a conversation to a weblog; the URL or network         location of the weblog may be specified by element 430, FIG. 4,         of the user record 402 for the respective user)     -   delete/archive conversation module 748, for deleting or         archiving a conversation from a user's inbox or conversation         viewer;     -   copy attachments to new conversation module 750, for copying         attachments from one conversation to another conversation,         without copying other content of the conversation;     -   transmit conversation module 752, for transmitting content of a         conversation to a client or to another conversation server         (e.g., for delivery to a user/client serviced by the other         conversation server);     -   transmit conversation list module 754, for transmitting a list         of conversations to a client or to another conversation server         (e.g., for delivery to a user/client serviced by the other         conversation server);     -   auxiliary services module 756 for providing access to services         outside of the conversation server;     -   entity suggestion module(s) 758 for generating entity         suggestions for a user based on conversations associated with         one or more of the entities;     -   entity profile generator 760 for generating entity profiles for         at least a subset of the entities based at least in part on         previous conversations (it should be understood that, in some         embodiments, the entity profile generator 760 performs “offline         training” by generating entity profiles based on batches of         archived conversations, as discussed in greater detail below         with reference to FIG. 17B);     -   conversation profile generator 762 for generating conversation         profiles for one or more conversations;     -   profile comparer 764 for comparing entity profiles to a         conversation profile to determine which entity profiles best         match the conversation profile;     -   suggestion generator 766 for using the comparisons between the         entity profiles and the conversation profile to generate a         suggestion including one or more of the entities associated with         the entity profiles;     -   user profile database 768 for storing information associated         with a user including entity profiles, entity affinity scores,         term weights, etc.     -   conversation profile database (optional) 770 for storing         conversation profiles (e.g., temporarily caching conversation         profiles generated by the conversation profile generator 762);         and     -   profile generation policies 772 for providing the entity profile         generator 760 and the conversation profile generator 762 with         rules for generating profiles (e.g., the number of terms to use,         the number of entities to use, the frequency with which the         entity profiles are to be re-generated).

Each of the above identified elements may be stored in one or more of the previously mentioned memory devices, and corresponds to a set of instructions for performing a function described above. The above identified modules or programs (i.e., sets of instructions) need not be implemented as separate software programs, procedures or modules, and thus various subsets of these modules may be combined or otherwise re-arranged in various embodiments. In some embodiments, memory 706 may store a subset of the modules and data structures identified above. Furthermore, memory 706 may store additional modules and data structures not described above.

Although FIG. 7 shows a conversation server, FIG. 7 is intended more as functional description of the various features which may be present in a set of servers than as a structural schematic of the embodiments described herein. In practice, and as recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, items shown separately could be combined and some items could be separated. For example, some items shown separately in FIG. 7 could be implemented on single servers and single items could be implemented by one or more servers. The actual number of servers used to implement a conversation server system and how features are allocated among them will vary from one implementation to another, and may depend in part on the amount of data traffic that the system must handle during peak usage periods as well as during average usage periods.

FIG. 8 is a block diagram of a client having a user who participates in one or more conversations in a hosted conversation system, according to certain embodiments of the invention. The client 800 includes one or more processing units (CPU's) 802, one or more network or other communications interfaces 804, memory 806, and one or more communication buses 808 for interconnecting these components. The communication buses 808 may include circuitry (sometimes called a chipset) that interconnects and controls communications between system components. The client 800 typically includes a user interface 805. In some embodiments, the user interface includes a display device, a keyboard and a pointer device (not shown), while in other embodiments (e.g., a cell phone or personal digital assistant) the user interface includes a touch screen display.

Memory 806 includes high-speed random access memory, such as DRAM, SRAM, DDR RAM or other random access solid state memory devices; and may include non-volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic disk storage devices, optical disk storage devices, flash memory devices, or other non-volatile solid state storage devices. Memory 806 may optionally include one or more storage devices remotely located from the CPU(s) 802. Memory 806, or alternately the non-volatile memory device(s) within memory 806, includes a computer readable storage medium. In some embodiments, memory 806 or the computer readable storage medium of memory 806 stores the following programs, modules and data structures, or a subset thereof:

-   -   an operating system 810 that includes procedures for handling         various basic system services and for performing hardware         dependent tasks;     -   a network communication module 812 that is used for connecting         the client 800 to other computers via the one or more         communication network interfaces 804 and one or more         communication networks, such as the Internet, other wide area         networks, local area networks, metropolitan area networks, and         so on;     -   a browser or other client application 814 for viewing and         interacting with web pages and other content, including         conversations in a hosted conversation system;     -   a conversation web page 815, which is received from a         conversation server (e.g., shown in FIG. 7) and is displayed         using the browser or other client application 814;     -   a conversation record 820, which contains the content of a         conversation downloaded from a conversation server, some or all         of which may be displayed in the conversation web page 815;     -   a conversation list 826, which is a list of conversations         downloaded from a conversation server (e.g., in response to a         query from a user of the client or as part of a user interface         displayed within the conversation web page 815);     -   a contact list 828, or a portion of the contact list of the user         of the client; the contact list may be maintained separately         from or in conjunction with a conversation system;     -   optionally, other data structures 830 (e.g., a list of labels         defined by the user); and     -   optionally, other applications 832 for execution by the client         800.

In some embodiments, the conversation web page 815 includes a client conversation module 818 or other client assistant that is embedded in the web page 815. The client conversation module 818 comprises executable instructions that are executed by the client 800; for example, the client conversation module 818 may include instructions that are executed by a virtual machine (e.g., a Java virtual machine) that is part of the browser 814. The conversation web page 815 includes a conversation user interface having icons, which when activated by a user, execute various tasks to enable a user to request a list of conversations, select a conversation for display, view various portions of a conversation, participate in the conversation (e.g., by adding content to or editing content of the conversation), start new conversations, download attachments, and so on. Icons in the conversation user interface may function as links to executable procedures and instructions in the client conversation module 818. The aforementioned conversation record 820 and conversation list 826 may, in some embodiments, be downloaded in response to instructions sent by a client conversation module 818, or other client assistant embedded in the web page 815, to a conversation server.

The conversation record 820 comprises a client version or subset of the conversation record 310, described above with respect to FIG. 3A, for a respective conversation. The client conversation record 820 includes conversation metadata 822 needed by the client (e.g., a list of participants and their online status) and content contributions 824 that are the content of the conversation. Depending on the implementation and the capabilities of the client 800, the conversation record 820 may optionally include the attachments, if any, of the conversation. Thus, attachments may be downloaded to some clients (e.g., desktop and laptop computers), but not to others (e.g., mobile phones and personal digital assistants). In some embodiments, the attachments of the conversation are not downloaded until they are requested by the user. Alternately, in some embodiments, thumbnail images and/or snippets (e.g., selected text, if any) of some or all the attachments are automatically downloaded to the client 800 along with the primary content of the conversation, and the full content of the attachments is downloaded to the client 800 only upon user request.

Each of the above identified modules corresponds to a set of instructions for performing the functions described above. The above identified modules or programs (i.e., sets of instructions) need not be implemented as separate software programs, procedures or modules, and thus various subsets of these modules may be combined or otherwise re-arranged in various embodiments. In some embodiments, memory 806 may store a subset of the modules and data structures identified above. Furthermore, memory 806 may store additional modules and data structures not described above.

FIGS. 9A and 9B illustrates a series of windows showing edits to a conversation by a plurality of participants of the conversation, and playback of those edits.

FIG. 9A illustrates changes made to a conversation by a plurality of participants in the conversation. In the following example, there are at least two participants in the conversation, “Joe” and “Pat”.

At a first time/step 920, a first conversation window 910 has a first unit of content 922 entered by a first participant (e.g., Joe), who is the initial author of content 922. In some embodiments, the conversation window 910 includes a zoom option 912 to zoom deeper into a conversation, a reply option 914 to reply to the content 922, a draft option 916 to create a draft message, or a setting option 918 to change conversation settings. A first caret 924 represents a point (sometimes herein called a cursor position) at which the first participant is typing or editing the content 922. As the first participant types, deletes, or moves around the content 922, the caret 924 moves, indicating the location in or portion of the content that the user is editing.

In some embodiments, the caret may be defined as an XML tag or other markup language tag or expression. In some embodiments, the caret content, style, etc. may be selected or defined by a participant, by a system administrator, etc.

At a second time/step 930, a second participant (Pat) provides a sequence of edits to the content 922. A second caret 934 represents a point at which the second participant (also called the second user) is typing or editing the content 922. The second user adds the text “Building B” 932 to the content 922. The original content (by Joe) and the edits thereto (by Pat) are edits by distinct first and second participants in the conversation.

In some embodiments, a server (e.g., hosting the conversation) prepares for display the first caret at a position corresponding to the first edits by the first participant (Joe) of the conversation, and prepares for display a second caret at a position corresponding to the second edits by the second participant (Pat) of the conversation. The server provides the first and second edits and the first and second carets to the one or more servers for display.

In some embodiments, timestamps or sequence numbers (e.g., #1, #2, #3, and #4, as illustrated) may be associated with new content or edits to existing content. In some embodiments, if a timestamp is used, the timestamps use a consistent time base such as the time base of the hosting server.

At a third time/step 940, the second user again edits the content 922, by deleting the word “second” and replacing it with the word “third” 942. The second caret 934 is now beside the word “third”, indicating the location where the second user is editing.

At a fourth time/step 950, first user Joe creates a new message, in a new message window 952 within the conversation window 910 and below the first message window (which contains content 922 of the first message), and adds new content 954 to the new message window. Caret 956 represents a new point at which the first user (Joe) is typing or editing the content 954 in the new message window 952.

In some embodiments, as a new content (e.g., content 922) or a sequence of edits (e.g., edits 932, 942) are received, the conversation is updated with the revised content unit. In some embodiments, the updated conversation is provided to the one or more servers hosting conversations for the participants (e.g., Joe, Pat, etc.) in the conversation.

In some embodiments, a server hosting the conversation checks for conflicts between the first edits and the second edits, and if a conflict occurs, the server notifies a participant associated with the conflict. For example, if participant Pat attempts to edit a piece of text that Joe is currently editing, such that the edits conflict with each other (e.g., Pat deletes a word as Joe is typing it, or Joe deletes a paragraph within which Pat is editing), a conflict occurs and one or both of the participants are notified. In some embodiments, conflicts are automatically resolved using a predefined concurrency control procedure, described in more detail below.

FIG. 9B illustrates playback of edits to the conversation illustrated in FIG. 9A. In some embodiments, the edits are played back in chronological order, e.g., according to timestamps associated with the edits. In some other embodiments, the edits are played back according to sequence numbers associated with the edits. A participant of the conversation may view changes to conversation using the playback mechanism.

In some embodiments, the conversation is played back showing changes within a user-specified portion (e.g., a block of text, a paragraph, a single unit of conversation (blip), etc.) of the conversation in a chronological order. In some embodiments, this user-specified portion of the conversation is played back without viewing changes to other portions of the conversation. In one example, the user-specified portion is a single content unit of the conversation.

In a first playback time/step, content 966 is displayed in a window 964. A forward option 962 is displayed allowing a viewer to go forward in the conversation playback.

In a second playback time/step, obtained by selecting the forward option 962 in window 964, content 970 shows edits by second participant (Pat) to the conversation, adding the words “Building B.” A back option 972 is displayed, which allows a participant to move backward in the conversation playback, and the forward option 962 continues to be displayed.

In a third playback time/step, obtained by selecting the forward option 962 in window 964 while viewing the second playback time/step, content 980 shows further edits by second participant (Pat) to the conversation, replacing the word “second” with “third.”

In a fourth playback time/step, obtained by selecting the forward option 962 in window 964 while viewing the third playback time/step, content 990 shows further edits (new window 992 with text) by first participant (Joe) to the conversation. A replay option 994 allows a participant to replay the sequence of updates to the conversation. In some embodiments, one or more playback options enable a participant to perform one or more of the following operations: playback recent edits (e.g., most recent in time or in number), edits by a particular participant, edits to a particular portion of the conversation, etc.

In some embodiments, a playback may only show changes by a particular participant of the conversation. This may allow the participant to review his/her changes, or to view the changes of another participant.

In some embodiment, edits in the sequence of edits include individual keystrokes of a sequence of keystrokes by a respective participant in the conversation. In some embodiments, a plurality of distinct edits in the sequence of edits are distinct keystrokes. In some embodiments, a plurality of distinct edits in the sequence of edits are distinct words. For example, edits 932 by participant Pat include a distinct word (Building) and a distinct letter (B), and edits 942 include a deletion operation (delete the word “second”) and an addition operation (adding the word “third”). In some embodiments, as each of these distinct edits is received by the server hosting the conversation, the conversation is updated accordingly.

FIG. 10 illustrates participants preparing a message in a draft mode. While in draft mode, a participant makes edits, such as adding or deleting content in a conversation, and the edits are received by the server hosting the conversation, but are not sent to other participants in the conversation. Only when the participant exits the draft mode, e.g., by indicating that he/she is finished making edits, are the participant's edits released (i.e., sent to the clients of the other participants) by the server so that other participants can view them. The author (i.e., a participant working in draft mode) can prepare content, knowing that intermediate changes or thoughts will not be visible to other participants until the author is ready.

In some embodiments, when one participant is editing a content unit (of a conversation) in draft mode, editing of the content unit by other participants is disabled. Editing of other content units of the same conversation by other participants is not disabled.

In some embodiments, a “team draft mode” allows a plurality of participants (e.g., members of Team A) to work together in preparing or editing content and to see each other's edits, while preventing non-team participants from seeing the content or edits until the team draft mode is exited. Using the team draft mode protects the privacy of team members as they work together to prepare content for publication to other participants in the conversation.

A number of different mechanisms may be used to exit the team draft mode, or to release content prepared by a team of participants. For example, the team draft mode may be exited (or content prepared by a respective team may be released for publication to the other conversation participants), when team members agree that the edits should be published. In some embodiments, in order to exit the team draft mode, all team members must agree to publish edits or content, while in some other embodiments a majority of team member must agree to publish edits or content, and in yet other embodiments, one or more senior team members determine when to publish edits or content.

In the team draft mode, as a respective participant of the conversation makes edits to the conversation, the updated conversation is provided to a server associated with a team member. In some embodiments, the edits to the conversation are provided to a server associated with a non-team member, but display of the edits is delayed. In some embodiments, the edits to the conversation are not provided to a server associated with a non-team member until the draft mode is ended.

Further, in the ‘team’ draft mode, edits to the conversation from the participant (author) and one or more team members are received, the conversation is updated, and the updated conversation is provided to the one or more servers associated with the respective participant and the other team members.

In a first time/step 1010, a first author/participant (e.g., Joe, who is a member of Team A) prepares a message in window 1012. An approval option 1014 (e.g., using a check mark for approved and a cross 1016 for not approved) shows that the first author has not yet approved the message. When the first participant approves the message, this may be represented as a check mark 1033 in option 1014. The first author enters content 1011, and a caret 1018 indicates the first author's current text entry or editing position in the content. In some modes of operation, as the first author enters the content 1011, the content is made visible to members of the same team as the first user.

In a second time/step 1020, a second participant (Pat, who is also a member of Team A) edits the content 1011 (in this example, changing “$100” to “$110”) to produce updated content 1021. Second caret 1026 shows the text entry or edit position of the second participant in the content. An approval option 1022 associated with the second participant is displayed at the top of the window 1012, and functions like the approval option 1014 associated with the first participant, as described above. As the second participant edits the content, the updated content 1021 is made visible to members of the same team.

In a third time/step 1030, the first (Joe) and second (Pat) participants approve the message for publication. This is indicated by check marks 1033 associated with approval options 1014 (for the first participant Joe) and 1022 (for the second participant Pat). The approved content (1031) is then published to other participants in the conversation.

In a fourth time/step 1040, the edits made by first and second participants are published so that conversation participants (e.g., members of Team B) outside of Team A can now view the published content 1041.

In the example shown in FIG. 10, all the team-based drafting and editing takes place in one message window 1012 for one content unit. In other embodiments, solo or team-based drafting can occur in more than one window or content unit, and can include adding new messages or editing existing messages.

FIGS. 11A-B are flowcharts representing methods for editing, playing back and drafting conversations hosted at a server, according to certain embodiments of the invention. These methods are governed by instructions that are stored in a computer readable storage medium and that are executed by one or more processors of one or more servers, as described.

FIG. 11A shows a method 1100 for hosting conversations at a server (e.g., in hosted conversations database 262, FIG. 2). A server hosts (1102) a plurality of conversations, each having an identified set of participants.

The server receives (1104) units of content (e.g., each content unit stored as a content contribution 326, FIG. 3A) from respective participants in the conversation and transmits to one or more servers hosting conversations for the participants in the conversation at least portions of the received content units. Optionally, individual keystrokes are transmitted from the client utilized by a content unit's author to other participants as the author composes the content of a content unit (1106).

The server receives (1108) a sequence of edits, including first edits and second edits, to a respective content unit of the conversation from at least one participant other than the initial author of the content unit to produce a revised content unit. Optionally, the first and second edits to the content unit are edits by distinct first and second participants in the conversation (1110).

Optionally, or in some modes of operation, editing of the respective content unit by other participants in the conversation is disabled (1112) while receiving edits to the content unit from a first participant of the conversation. Alternately, concurrent editing by more than one participant in the conversation is enabled (1113). As described in more detail below, any conflicts between concurrent edits by different participants are resolved and the resulting consistent content is published to (or made available to) all the conversation participants.

In some embodiments, a first caret (e.g., caret 924 identifying Joe in FIG. 9A) is prepared for display (1114) at a position corresponding to the first edits by the first participant of the conversation, and a second caret (e.g., caret 934 identifying Pat) is prepared for display at a position corresponding to the second edits by the second participant of the conversation, and the first and second edits and the first and second carets (or caret positions) are provided to the one or more servers. Active participants in the conversation (e.g., participants whose clients are currently displaying the conversation) can see the carets associated with concurrent authors/editors of a content unit.

In some embodiments, the plurality of edits in the sequence of edits include distinct keystrokes (1116). In these embodiments, the clients used by active participants in the conversation display updates/edits to the conversation at substantially the same time as they are entered by the author of those update/edits.

In some embodiments, the plurality of edits in the sequence of edits include distinct words (1118). In these embodiments, the clients used by active participants in the conversation display word-by-word updates/edits to the conversation at substantially the same time as they are entered by the author of those update/edits.

A respective timestamp or sequence number is stored (1120) for each distinct edit in the sequence of edits to the content unit, including distinct timestamps or sequence numbers for at least first and second edits to the content unit.

The conversation is updated (1222) with the revised content unit and the updated conversation is automatically provided to the one or more servers hosting conversations for the participants in the conversation.

FIG. 11B continues the method 1100 for hosting conversations at a server, illustrated in FIG. 11A.

In some embodiments, a timestamp (e.g., timestamps 1, 2, 3, 4 indicated by 920, 930, 940, 950, etc., of FIG. 9A and stored in timestamps 341 of FIG. 3B) is stored (1130) for each content unit in the conversation.

Data is transmitted (1132) representing the sequence of edits to a respective participant of the conversation, thus enabling the respective participant to view changes to the conversation in accordance with the sequence of edits.

In some embodiments or modes of operation, the respective participant is permitted to view (1134) changes to the conversation (or a user-specified portion of the conversation) in a chronological order, e.g., even if the changes are spaced apart from each other in the conversation. Stated in another way, in some modes of operation the playback function in a client application displays a sequence of changes to the conversation in chronological order. For example, in FIG. 9B a conversation is played back to show changes to the conversation as a result of adding and editing of content by participants in the conversation.

In some embodiments or modes of operation, the respective participant is permitted to view (1136) a sequence of changes within a logical portion of the conversation in a chronological order, e.g., using the back 972 and forward 974 buttons to navigate through changes in the conversation. Stated in another way, in some modes of operation the playback function in a client application displays a sequence of changes within a logical portion of the conversation in a chronological order. This allows a participant to see sequences of changes in a specific portion of interest in the conversation, without seeing changes in unrelated portions. For example, the logical portion of the conversation for which changes are displayed may be a single content unit of the conversation (1138). Alternately, the logical portion of the conversation for which changes are shown (when using the playback function) are a plurality of user-selected content units of the conversation.

In some embodiments, a respective participant of the conversation is permitted to view (1140) changes to the conversation by another respective participant of the conversation, e.g., to view all changes made by first participant Joe or by second participant Pat, as illustrated in FIG. 9A.

In some embodiments, the server delays (1142) providing edits to the conversation by a respective participant operating in a draft mode, and provides the updated conversation to other participants (e.g., to the servers that host conversations of the other participants, and to the clients used by those other participants) until the respective participant exits the draft mode or releases the conversation edits/updates that he/she has made. For example, edits 1011, 1021 of FIG. 10 are not provided to Team B until after members of Team A (Joe, Pat) approve the edits and end the draft mode. In some embodiments, draft mode information or draft approval information or status is stored in the participant conversation state 372 (FIG. 3B) for the conversation.

In some embodiments, while a respective participant (who is a team member) makes edits to the conversation using a team draft mode, the server provides (1144) the updated conversation to a server associated with another team member (e.g., Joe can see Pat's edits and vice versa), and delays providing the edits to the conversation by the respective participant to a server associated with a non-team member (e.g., Team B cannot see Team A's edits during the draft mode). After the draft mode is ended, the server provides the updated conversation, including the edits to the conversation by the respective participant, to the server associated with the non-team member. Alternately, the conversation edits made during draft mode are provided contemporaneously to the servers associated with all conversation participants, but the changes are marked as draft mode changes and therefore not provided to participants outside the team of the participant making the changes until the draft mode is exited or the conversation updates are approved or released (e.g., by the participant or by the participant's team).

In some embodiments, when a group or team of participants in a first conversation initiates editing of the conversation in a team draft mode, a separate conversation is created. The team members draft content within the separate conversation, and when the team is finished drafting the separate conversation or a portion thereof is merged back into the first conversation, at which point the new or edited content is made available to the other participants in the first conversation.

Concurrency Control

The aforementioned cooperative editing module 736 (FIG. 7) allows multiple participants (clients) to simultaneously edit a conversation, and provides conflict detection and resolution to determine if participants' edits conflict. At a respective client, a user enters and edits conversation content using an “optimistic user interface,” which assumes there is no conflict between content entry and edits made by the user of the client device and other participants in the same conversation, until it is told otherwise by the conversation server that provides conversation hosting services for the client.

Referring to FIG. 15, one or more participants in a conversation make edits to a conversation at their local client (1510), which sends the user edits (1512) to the conversation server that provides conversation services to the client. The user edits made by each participant are received at the conversation server system (1520).

When conflicting changes (edits) are made by two (or more) conversation participants (herein called the “competing participants” for ease of identification, as opposed to any other participants who are not currently making conflicting edits to the conversation), transformation operations are performed on the edits made by the competing participants so that the state of the conversation on each of the clients is consistent. Furthermore, the conversation server reduces the number of transformation operations it needs to perform by merging sequences of edits made at each client into merged sequences of edits (1522), and then performing the transformation operations on the merged sequences of edits by the competing participants (1524). Respective transformed sequences of edits are transmitted to the clients of the competing participants (and to any other active participants), along with sequencing information (1524, 1534)) to enable each client to apply both locally made edits and the received transformed sequences of edits in the correct order so as to reproduce the correct current state of the conversation (1536).

When non-conflict changes (edits) are made by two (or more) conversation participants, the conversation server still merges sequences of edits made at each client into merged sequences of edits (1522). Each merged sequence of edits is assigned a timestamp and/or sequence number (see description above of conversation log 324, FIG. 3A), and is sent to the clients of the conversation participants (1522, 1530) so that all the participants have a consistent record of conversation state. The respective clients apply the received merged edit sequences to update the locally stored conversation state (1532). Each client at which the conversation is being displayed updates its display of the conversation (1538) in accordance with both the locally made edits and the merged sequences of edits of other participants received from the conversation server.

A special situation requiring special handling at the client is as follows. If, at the time a transformed sequence of edits is received at a client, the participant using the client has made additional changes that conflict, or potentially conflict with the changes recorded in the received transformed sequence of edits, then the client performs a second transformation on the received sequence of edits that anticipates the transforms to be made at the server when it receives the additional changes made at the client. As a result of the second transformation on the received sequence of edits, and the transformation applied by the server to the edits made at the client, the conversation state is made consistent across the clients of the participating users and across the hosting server(s). In other words, each of the clients includes operation transformation instructions, to be applied to received edits made at other clients, that take into account transformations that will be performed by the server on the edits made at those clients operations. The state of the conversation at each step along the way is represented by a corresponding sequence number, which is used by both the clients and the conversation hosting server to ensure that the transformations made at the clients and servers are coordinated or synchronized and produce a consistent conversation state. (1536).

It is noted that locally made edits are sent to the conversation server (1512) on a continuing basis, and so the edits made subsequent to the received transformed sequence of edit are also sent to the conversation server, and the process of generating merged sequences of edits, and generating transformed sequences of edits (if needed), continues. As a result, the state of the conversation at each client reflects interleaved sequences of edits by the active participants, where some of the sequences of edits are transformed sequences that have been transformed in order to achieve a consistent state at each of the clients used by the conversation participants.

As discussed above, in some embodiments, concurrency control operations for a conversation are performed at both the conversation server system 130 that hosts the conversation and, when necessary, by clients that receive transformed edits that conflict with intervening edits made at those clients.

The quantity of edits that are merged into a merged edit sequence (1522) depends, at least in part, on the rate at which the participant is entering edits. Another factor that may affect the quantity of edits that are merged is whether other participants are editing the same content unit at the same time. For example, when there are no competing edits being made by other participants, relatively long sequences of edits may be merged. However, when competing edits are being made by other participants, relatively short sequences of edits (e.g., limited to edits made in a period of N seconds, where N is typically less than or equal to 0.5) are merged. In other embodiments, edits (which includes content entry, as well as revisions of previously entered content, and changes to shared metadata) by a participant are sent right away to other active participants in the conversation, if any, without performing any merging. When conflicts are detected, a transformation is generated (at the hosting conversation server, or at another server) for each individual edit operation before forwarding it to the other active participants. As noted above, a second level transformation on a respective received transformed edit is performed at the receiving client when the received transformed edit conflicts with an edit made at the local client since the time corresponding to the conversation state sequence number.

To keep latency, defined as the delay between edit entry and its appearance at the clients of other participants, low, edits by participants are typically sent to the other active participants as quickly as possible, without regard to edit sequence merging. Fast transformation and forwarding of edits during “live conflicts” (when two or more participants are revising the same portion of the conversation) keeps the participants accurately apprised of the evolving conversation state during live conflicts. Since merging operations and then transforming them to the active participants would increase latency, operation merging is either not used, or used only for very small time windows, during live conflicts. On the other hand, for purposes of recording the conversation history in the conversation log 324 (FIG. 3C) for playback, sequences of operations performed in short periods of time are merged. As noted above, a conversation log record 385 can include a list of authors 390 identifying multiple authors of a change to the conversation state when more than one author is editing the same conversation at the same time or during overlapping times. Furthermore, when there are no conflicts between participants, entire sequences of editing by a participant, from the start of an edit sequence until the user selects the “done” icon or button, are merged into a single edit sequence for storage in a single conversation log record 385 (FIG. 3C).

FIG. 12 illustrates a process diagram showing the application of concurrency control between a plurality of potentially conflicting edits received from two participants. The example illustrated in FIG. 12 shows transformation operations of ASCII text including XML tags and content. Operations are performed at a first participant (client) and at a second participant (client).

A first sequence of edits to a respective content unit of the conversation is received from a first participant of the conversation, and the first sequence of edits is converted into a first merged sequence of edits (1212). A second sequence of edits to a respective content unit of the conversation is received from a second participant of the conversation, and the second sequence of edits is converted into a second merged sequence (1216).

The first merged sequence of edits (1212) is transformed to produce a first transformed sequence of edits (1232), and the second merged sequence is transformed to produce a second transformed sequence of edits (1222). The first transformed sequence of edits (1232) is sent to the second participant, and the second transformed sequence of edits (1222) is sent to the first participant. At the first client, the first merged sequence (1212) is applied to an initial conversation state D1 to produce an intermediate conversation state D2, and then the second transformed sequence of edits (1222) is applied to the conversation state D2 to produce a new conversation state D4. At the second client, the second merged sequence of edits (1216) is applied to the initial conversation state D1 to produce an intermediate conversation state D3, and then the first transformed sequence of edits (1232) is applied to the intermediate conversation state D3 to produce the same new conversation state D4 as produced at the first client. Thus, the transformed sequences of edits, 1232 and 1222, are generated so that when they are applied to the conversation state after the application of locally made edits (corresponding to merged sequence of edits for that client), the conversation state in both clients converges to a consistent state.

In the example of FIG. 12, each ASCII text character has a size of one, and each starting and ending XML tag has a size of one. In the example of FIG. 12, “delete text” refers to a text deletion component of the operation, and “delete element” refers to an element deletion operation. The number accompanying a text or element deletion operation refers to the size of the element deletion. Both “insert element” is used to add XML tags to a conversation unit, and “insert text” is used to insert text. Transformations of merged sequences of content update operations (edits) take into account the position of each operation in the conversation unit, and also take into account duplicate operations (e.g., completing operations that delete the same text), or more generally operations that render other competing operations moot).

The initial conversation state D1 1210 comprises a first string:

-   -   D1=<example>abcdefg</example>

The second (or revised) conversation state D4 1240 comprises a second string:

-   -   D4=<example>a<tagName attr1=“value1”         attr2=“value2”>A<nested>B</nested>C</tagName>fg</example>

Intermediate conversation state D2 1220 comprises a third string:

-   -   D2=<example>ab<tagName attr1=“value1”         attr2=“value2”>A<nested>B</nested>C</tagName>fg</example>

Intermediate conversation state D3 1230 comprises a fourth string:

-   -   D3=<example>aefg</example>

The first merged sequence of edits 1212 provides the following edits:

-   -   skip 3     -   insert element start with tag name “tagName” and attributes         [attr1=“value1”, attr2=“value2”]     -   insert text “A”     -   insert element start with tag name “nested” and attributes     -   insert text “B”     -   insert element end     -   insert text “C”     -   insert element end     -   delete text 3 (e.g., text cde)

When the first merged sequence of edits 1212 is applied to the initial conversation state D1 1210, the result is intermediate conversation state D2 1220, described above. A dotted box 1214 indicates the portion of state D2 in which changes were made to D1 by the first merged sequence of edits 1212.

The second transformed sequence of edits 1222 provides the following edits:

-   -   skip 2     -   delete text 1

The second transformed sequence of edits 1222 deletes the letter “b” 1224 from the intermediate conversation state D2. The result of this operation is the second (or revised) conversation state D4 1240.

The second merged sequence of edits 1216 provides the following edits:

-   -   skip 2     -   delete text 3 (e.g., delete “bcd”)

The second merged sequence of edits 1216 deletes the letters “bcd” from the first conversation state D1. The result of applying the second merged sequence of edits 1216 to the first conversation state D1 is the intermediate conversation state D3 1230.

The first transformed sequence of edits 1232 provides the following edits:

-   -   skip 2     -   insert element start with tag name “tagName” and attributes         [attr1=“value1”, attr2=“value2”]     -   insert text “A”     -   insert element start with tag name “nested” and attributes     -   insert text “B”     -   insert element end     -   insert text “C”     -   insert element end     -   delete text 1

The first transformed sequence of edits 1232 changes the intermediate conversation state D3 by adding the material indicated by the dotted line 1234 on FIG. 12. The result of this operation is the second conversation state D4.

It is noted that the merging of edit sequences makes the detection of conflicting edits (by different users) easier, thereby reducing the amount of computational resources needed for concurrency control. Conflicting edits are detected, for example, when the transformation of a merged sequence of edits would change the position of at least one edit operation. Conflicting edits are also detected when first and second merged sequences of edits (by two distinct participants) include overlapping delete operations. Transforming a merged sequence of edits for which there is an overlapping delete operation (i.e., overlapping with edit operations by another participant) produces a transformed delete operation that deletes fewer elements of the respective content unit than the respective delete operation of the merged sequence of edits.

In some embodiments, when first and second merged sequences of operation include overlapping operations, including a redundant operation, the first transformed sequence of edits does not include the redundant operation.

In some embodiments, distinct conversation (or content unit) version numbers are associated with the state of a respective conversation (or content unit) before and after each merged sequence of edit operations. Similarly, distinct version numbers are associated with the state of a respective conversation (or content unit) before and after each transformed sequence of edit operations. In some embodiments, distinct timestamps are associated with each distinct version number of the conversation (or content unit).

FIG. 13 illustrates a sequence of separate edit operations to a content unit received from a first participant and a sequence of separate edit operations received from a second participant in a conversation.

A starting point for this sequence is a first content unit state 1310, comprising the text “ABCDEFG”. A first sequence of edits is received from a first participant, including:

-   -   1316: insert “X” at 6, resulting in text ABCDEFXG     -   1318: insert “Y” at 1, resulting in text AYBCDEFXG     -   1350: delete 3-5, resulting in text AYBEFXG

A second transformed sequence of edits is received from the second participant and applied at the first participant, including:

-   -   1352: delete 3-4, resulting in text AYBFXG     -   1354: insert “M” at 5, resulting in text AYBFXMG     -   1356: insert “N” at 3, resulting in text AYBNFXMG.         This is the final content unit state 1370.

Again, referring to the starting state 1310, comprising the text “ABCDEFG”, a second sequence of edits is received from a second participant, including:

-   -   1312: delete 3-5, resulting in text ABCFG     -   1314: insert “M” at 4, resulting in text ABCFMG     -   1330: insert “N” at 3, resulting in text ABCNFMG

A first transformed sequence of edits is received from the first participant and applied at the second participant, including:

-   -   1332: insert “X” at 5, resulting in text ABCNFXMG     -   1334: insert “Y” at 1, resulting in text AYBCNFXMG     -   1336: delete 3-5, resulting in text AYBNFXMG.         This is the final content unit state 1370, and is the same         content unit state as achieved using the first sequence of edits         and the second transformed sequence of edits.

Since there are a plurality of separate edits, there are also a plurality of transforms (indicated by the plurality of arrows/paths from content unit state 1310 to content unit state 1370). In this embodiment, each transform has to be calculated for each path, which consumes processor resources and takes time.

FIG. 14 illustrates 1400 a sequence of merged edit operations to a content unit received from a first participant and a sequence of merged edit operations received from a second participant in a conversation, and transforms thereon.

A starting point for this sequence is a first content unit state 1410, comprising the text “ABCDEFG” and corresponding to the starting content unit state 1310 of FIG. 13.

A first merged sequence of edits is received from a first participant, including:

-   -   1416: skip 1, insert “Y”, skip 1, delete 2, skip 2, insert X,         resulting in text AYBEFXG, content unit state 1450.

A second transformed merged sequence of edits is received from the second participant and applied at the first participant, including:

-   -   1452: skip 3, delete 1, insert “N”, skip 2, insert M, resulting         in text AYBNFXMG, end point 1470.

Again referring to the starting content unit state 1410, comprising the text “ABCDEFG”, a second merged sequence of edits is received from a second participant, including:

-   -   1412: skip 3, delete 2, insert “N”, skip 1, insert “M”,         resulting in text ABCNFMG, content unit state 1430.

A first transformed merged sequence of edits is received from the first participant and applied at the second participant, including:

-   -   1432: skip 1, insert “Y”, skip 1, delete 1, skip 2, insert “X”,         resulting in text AYBNFXMG, which is the final content unit         state 1470.         This is the final content unit state 1470 as the state achieved         by applying the first merged sequence of edits and the second         transformed merged sequence of edits.

Since the individual edits (e.g., as in FIG. 13) are merged into a sequence of edits in FIG. 14, there are fewer transforms required using the embodiment of FIG. 14 versus that of FIG. 13 (indicated by the pair of arrows/paths from point 1310 to point 1370). In this embodiment, one transform has to be calculated for each path, which is a lower processing burden than the embodiment of FIG. 13. The embodiment of FIG. 14, using merged sequences of edits, thus provides advantages of a reduced calculation requirement.

Other Applications

Another application that may be associated with the server hosting the conversation includes a contextual spell checker and correction application. Such an application can be used to find common misspellings, and to disambiguate intentionally defined words. Such an application may use an error model to determine if an work is spelled or used correctly. The model may find common errors based on letter reversal, phonetic similarity, location in a conversation or letter, or using other means. The application may provide on-the-fly, context based text correction. In some embodiments, the application provides a user-specific overlay of words that a user frequently uses or that the user has defined. In some embodiments, the application may insert a tag with a suggestion for a word that it considers to be incorrectly spelled, such that any participant (not just the author) can address and correct the word, if necessary.

Another application that may be associated with the server hosting the conversation includes a contextual name display, using context-dependent disambiguation. In some embodiments, this disambiguation may provide space efficiency when displaying names. For example, a close friend or work colleague may be displayed using a first name only or a picture, whereas a stranger may be displayed with full name, title, etc. A set of rules (defined by the system or by the user or both) may be used to determine who to display and in what manner.

Another application that may be associated with the server hosting the conversation includes a language translation (machine translation) application. This machine translation application may use the spell checking and/or a context sensitive dictionary to translate between languages.

In some embodiments, these (and other) applications use an application protocol interface (API) to interact with the server hosting the conversation. In some embodiments, the application allows a participant to reserve a namespace for that participant's personal applications, which the participant may share with other participants.

FIG. 16 is a block diagram of a distributed client-server computing system 2000 including a conversation server 700 according to some embodiments of the invention. The conversation server 700 is connected to a plurality of conversation clients 800 and third party webservers 2002 through one or more communication networks 120. A third party webserver 2002 may include a collection of web pages 2004 associated with a domain name on the Internet (e.g., a website).

The conversation client 800 (sometimes called a “client system,” or “client device” or “client computer”) may be any computer or device through which a user of the conversation client 800 can submit service requests to and receive search results or other services from the conversation server 700. Examples of conversation clients 800 include, without limitation, desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, mobile devices such as mobile phones, personal digital assistants, set-top boxes, or any combination of the above. A respective conversation client 800 may contain at least one client application 814 for submitting requests to the conversation server 700. For example, the client application 814 can be a web browser or other type of application that permits a user to search for, browse, and/or use information (e.g., web pages and web services) that is accessible through communication network 120. In some embodiments, the conversation client 800 includes one or more client assistants 2008. The client assistant 2008 can be a software application that performs one or more tasks related to assisting a user's activities with respect to the client application 814 and/or other applications. For example, the client assistant 2008 may assist a user at the conversation client 800 with browsing information (e.g., files) hosted by a third party webserver 2002, processing information (e.g., conversations or search results) received from the conversation server 700, and monitoring the user's activities on the search results. In some embodiments the client assistant 2008 is embedded in one or more web pages (e.g., a search results web page) or other documents downloaded from the conversation server 700. In some embodiments, the client assistant 2008 is a part of the client application 814 (e.g., a plug-in of a web browser).

The communication network(s) 120 can be any wired or wireless local area network (LAN) and/or wide area network (WAN), such as an intranet, an extranet, the Internet, or a combination of such networks. In some embodiments, the communication network 120 uses the HyperText Transport Protocol (HTTP) and the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) to transport information between different networks. The HTTP permits client devices to access various information items available on the Internet via the communication network 120. The various embodiments of the invention, however, are not limited to the use of any particular protocol.

In some embodiments, the conversation server 700 includes a front end server 2006, an entity profile generator 760, a conversation profile generator 762, a profile comparer 764, a suggestion generator 766, a conversation database 726, and a user profile database 768. Optionally, the conversation server 700 also includes one or more of a conversation profile database 770, and profile generation policies 772.

The front end server 2006 is configured to receive data from a conversation client 800. In some embodiments the data is a conversation, and is stored in a conversation database 726. Conversations from the conversation database 726 are accessed by the entity profile generator 760 to generate entity profiles based at least in part on the conversations in accordance with profile generation policies 772. The entity profiles are stored in a user profile database 768.

In some embodiments the data is a request that is received from conversation client 800, and the request is sent from the front end server 2006 to the conversation profile generator 762. The conversation profile generator 762 analyzes the conversation and generates a conversation profile based at least in part on the received conversation. In some embodiments, the conversation is stored in the conversation database 726 and the conversation profile generator 762 accesses the conversation from the conversation database 726. In some embodiments the conversation profile is sent from the conversation profile generator 762 directly to the profile comparer 764, where the profile comparer 764 compares the conversation profile with entity profiles from the user profile database 768. In other embodiments, the conversation profile is stored in the conversation profile database 770, and the profile comparer 764 retrieves conversation profiles from the conversation profile database 770 and entity profiles from the user profile database 768 and then compares the conversation profile to various ones of the entity profiles. In some embodiments, the conversation profile database 770 is a cache that stores recently generated conversation profiles. In these embodiments, a respective conversation profile is purged when there are no active participants in the corresponding conversation, and is replaced with an updated profile when the amount of change to the conversation in the conversation, since the conversation profile was last generated, meets one or more predefined criteria. Examples of the predefined criteria include criteria concerning the quantity or percentage of conversation content that changes, criteria concerning the deletion of terms in the profile, and/or criteria concerning the additional or removal of participants, tags, attachments, or any other feature(s) relevant to the conversation profile.

The suggestion generator 766 receives the comparisons (e.g., similarity scores) from the profile comparer 764 and generates suggestions including at least some of the entities associated with the entity profiles. It should be understood that, in some circumstances no suggestions are generated for a conversation. For example, if all of the terms that have been added to the conversation are terms that are not used to create entity profiles (e.g., terms that have been deemed to be non-predictive, such as “noise words” like “the,” “of,” “and,” etc.), any comparison of the conversation profile with any entity profile will result in a score of zero. The front end server 2006 receives the suggestions and provides the suggestions to the conversation client 800 associated with the received data (e.g., the original request for suggestions) through the communication network 120.

It should be understood that while a system 2000 may have a single conversation server 700, in other embodiments the system 2000 may have multiple conversation servers 700. For example, as described in greater detail above with reference to FIG. 1, multiple conversation servers 130 may be hosted by different service providers, such as providers 116-A and 116-B respectively. In some embodiments, the providers are internet service providers (ISPs) providing a conversation service. Alternately, some or all of the providers may be dedicated conversation providers. When the system 100 includes multiple conversation servers 130, the conversation servers 130 may be coupled together directly, or by a local area network (LAN), or via the network 120.

Attention is now directed towards FIG. 17A, which illustrates an overview of a method for generating entity suggestions in accordance with some embodiments. In some embodiments, conversation activity (2010) occurs, as described in greater detail above with reference to FIGS. 5A-5E. In accordance with some embodiments an entity is a participant identifier (e.g., an account username, an email address, an instant messenger screen name, a phone number, etc.), a tag (e.g., human edited metadata associated with a conversation that is visible to all participants in the conversation), or a label (e.g., a folder or attribute associated with a conversation on a per user basis and is only visible to the user who associated the label with the conversation).

It should be understood that this conversation activity may involve one or more clients and one or more servers exchanging data to create a plurality of conversations. In some embodiments a plurality of conversations associated with a user (e.g., conversations in which the user is a participant) are stored (2012) at the conversation server 700. The conversation server 700 generates (2014) a plurality of entity profiles for the user, as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 17B. In some embodiments, a triggering action is performed at the client. In some embodiments, the triggering action includes the user editing (2016) a conversation (e.g., creating a new conversation, entering or deleting content from an existing conversation, or adding a participant, tag or label to a conversation). In some embodiments the triggering action is an action performed by a different user who is also a participant in the conversation. In some embodiments the triggering action is a request (2018) to enter an entity addition mode (e.g., the user opens an address book panel or pop-up window, the user places a cursor in a user interface box for adding a tag, label or a contact, or the user adds content to a portion of the conversation associated with a concurrently displayed entity list, and the entity list is reordered based on the added content).

In some embodiments, the conversation client 800 periodically sends requests to the conversation server 700 for entity suggestions, which are not based on inputs from the user. Similarly, in some embodiments, the conversation server 700 periodically accesses a conversation associated with the user (e.g., the most recently edited conversation that is currently active (e.g., displayed in a window) on the conversation client) and generates entity suggestions. Both of these automatic suggestion generating methods generate suggestions periodically so that fresh suggestions are available to the user immediately after the user requests a suggestion, rather than requiring processing by the conversation server 700 in response to a request from the user.

In some embodiments the conversation server 700 accesses (2020) a conversation in which the user is a participant, and obtains (2022) a conversation profile for the conversation. In some embodiments, the accessed conversation is the conversation that was being edited by the user or is currently displayed to the user on the conversation client 800. In some embodiments, obtaining a conversation profile includes generating (2024) the conversation profile for the conversation as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 17C.

In some embodiments, the conversation server 700 accesses (2026) a plurality of entity profiles corresponding to the user. In some embodiments, each entity profile corresponds to a respective entity in other conversations in which the user is a participant and is based on content in the other conversations. In some embodiments, the entity profiles include entities that are present in all of the conversations (i.e., including the accessed conversation) in which the user is a participant and are based on the content of all of those conversations. For example, a respective conversation is used as a “training conversation” in order to create the entity profiles for a particular user, as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 17B. In this example, when the user later returns to view this respective conversation, entity suggestions are displayed that are based on the generated entity profiles (which are, in turn, based in part on the respective conversation). The conversation server 700 compares (2028) at least a subset of the entity profiles to the conversation profile to identify a set of entities having entity profiles that best match the conversation profile, as discussed in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 17D. In some embodiments, the conversation server generates (2030) a suggestion including a suggested entity from the identified set of entities, as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 17D. For example, if Anne is creating a new conversation and has not yet selected a participant (e.g., recipient) for the conversation, but begins to write “Hi Barry, Do you still want to go to Tahoe this . . . ” a generated suggestion may include Barry's contact information if Anne has created other conversations where Barry was a participant.

In accordance with some embodiments, the conversation server 700 sends (2032) the suggestion to the client system for display. It should be understood that a suggestion may include a single entity, or a suggestion may include a plurality of entities such as a ranked list of entities (e.g., a ranked list of the most likely contacts to add as participants to the conversation or the most likely tags to add as metadata). The conversation client 800 receives the suggestion and displays (2034) the suggestion to the user. If the user selects (2036) a suggested entity, then the conversation client 800 sends to the conversation server a response that identifies the user-selected suggested entity. In some embodiments, the conversation server receives (2038) the response from the client system and associates (2040) the user-selected entity with the conversation (e.g., the user-selected suggested entity is associated with the conversation). Continuing the example from above, Anne begins adding text to the conversation and Barry's contact information (e.g., account name or email address) is displayed to Anne at the top of a contact list in the user interface where Anne is editing the conversation. Anne selects Barry to add to the conversation, and the conversation server 700 adds Barry as a participant to the conversation.

In some embodiments, the suggested entity is not selected (2042) by the user, but instead an alternate entity is selected (2044). In this case, the user-selected entity is associated (2040) with the conversation. If the user does not select (2046) an alternate entity, then the method ends (2048). It should be understood that the process of selecting a suggested entity or an alternate entity may be combined into a single step, where the user is presented with a plurality of entities including both suggested and alternate (e.g., non-suggested) entities and selects one or more entities from the list. In some embodiments, if the user does not select (2046) an alternate entity the process is done (2048). It should be understood that in some embodiments the method shown in FIG. 17A is repeated in response to editing of the conversation by the user or editing of another conversation in which the user is a participant. Similarly, in some embodiments, the method is repeated in response to editing or input by participants in the conversation other than the user.

Attention is now directed towards FIG. 17B, which illustrates a method for generating (2014) an entity profile in accordance with some embodiments. In some embodiments, as a preliminary step of generating an entity profile, the conversation server 700 analyzes (2050) a plurality of conversations of the user (i.e., historical conversations, stored in the conversation database) to identify a plurality of predictive terms for use in generating the entity profile, as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 17E. In some embodiments, the plurality of conversations used by the conversation server to generate an entity profile are batches of archived conversations, rather than active conversations that are available “on-line” in the running conversation system (e.g., the “live” conversations that can be concurrently edited by a plurality of participants). In other words, the conversation system copies the content of a plurality of conversations from the running conversation (e.g., a “snapshot” of the conversations in which the user is a participant) to a separate data structure and generates entity profiles based on these archived conversations. While using batches of archived conversations to generate entity profiles introduces the possibility that some of the conversations will be out of date (e.g., because some of those conversations may have been revised after being archived), it allows the entity profile generation to be performed in such a way that it does not affect the performance of the running conversation system.

In some embodiments, a term is a word in a conversation. In some embodiments a term is an entity such as a tag or a label. However, it should be understood, that as used herein the word “term” does not necessarily refer exclusively to a word or explicit text token (e.g., a tag or a label) but may be an aspect of the conversation such as which other users are already participants in a conversation or a type of content that is attached to the conversation. In some embodiments, a single term includes a first word and a second word, wherein the first word is a synonym of the second word.

In accordance with some embodiments, the conversation server 700 selects (2052) an entity associated with the user, selects (2054) a conversation associated with the entity, selects (2056) a predictive term in the conversation and counts (2058) the occurrences of the predictive term in the conversation. It should be understood that the predictive terms may be selected from the plurality of predictive terms previously identified by the conversation server 700. In some embodiments, the occurrences of the predictive term in the conversation are weighted (2060) based on the internal structure of the conversation, as described below in greater detail with reference to FIG. 17F.

In some embodiments, the count of occurrences of a predictive term in a conversation is discounted (2061) (e.g., logarithmic discounting), so that the first occurrence (or the first N occurrences) of a term in a conversation has a greater weight than the subsequent occurrences of the term. In some embodiments, this discounting helps to prevent the frequent occurrence of a single term in a conversation from disproportionately skewing the comparison of a conversation profile to an entity profile. In some embodiments the discounted term count is adjusted (2062) using a term weight from the user profile. In some embodiments, the term weights are user-specific term weights (e.g., term weights 2240 in a user profile 2230-2 as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 18B). In other words, the term weight is a context-independent weight that is indicative of the importance of the term to the user. For example, a term that occurs frequently in conversations in which the user is a participant will have a higher weight than a term that occurs less frequently in conversations in which the user is a participant. In some embodiments an inverse document frequency metric is used, so that the term weight is based on (e.g., inversely proportional to, or inversely related to) the percentage of the user's conversations in which the term appears (as opposed to the number of times that the term is used in all of the conversations associated with the user). In some embodiments the term weight is based on the number of times that the term is used in at least a subset of the conversations associated with the user.

Consequently, in accordance with some embodiments, the entity profiles for each user are individualized to that particular user in at least two ways. First, an entity profile is explicitly generated based on terms in the conversations associated with the entity in which the user is a participant. Second, the entity profile is individualized to the particular user, by adjusting the elements of the entity profile based on user-specific term weights. It should be understood that, in some embodiments, the user-specific term weights are generated based on a plurality of conversations in which the user is a participant, at least a subset of which are not associated with the entity. Thus, in some embodiments, the term weights include contributions from both conversations that are associated with the entity (e.g., via analyzing the terms in conversations associated with the entity as illustrated in FIG. 17B) and also from conversations that are not associated with the entity (e.g., via the user-specific term weights). As a result, in these embodiments, the entity profile is determined based at least in part on conversations that are not associated with the entity. For example, if the user frequently uses the term “email” in all of his conversations, that term will have a low user-specific term weight compared to a normal term weight, and thus the term “email” will have reduced significance in an entity profile that includes the term as compared with terms that have a normal term weight. In contrast, if the user only uses the term “Tahoe” in conversations that are associated with the entity “travel” then the term will have a high user-specific term weight compared to a normal term weight, and thus the term “Tahoe” will have increased significance in an entity profile that includes the term as compared with terms that have a normal term weight.

After the occurrences of the predictive term in the conversation have been counted (optionally with weighting as described above), the conversation server 700 checks to determine whether there are more predictive terms in the conversation to count (e.g., the conversation server counts the occurrence of the term “Tahoe” and then counts the occurrences of the term “pizza”). If there are (2063) more terms, the conversation server 700 selects one of those terms (e.g., “pizza”) and repeats the process described above. In some embodiments, if there are no (2064) uncounted predictive terms in the selected conversation, then the conversation server adjusts (2066) the contributions to the entity profile for the selected conversation (e.g., discounting by the age of the conversation or the length of the conversation). In some embodiments, conversations are progressively degraded as they age so as to reduce their influence in the generation of the entity profile. For example, a conversation that is one week old will be adjusted so that it influences the entity profile half as much as a conversation that is one day old, and a conversation that is one month old will be adjusted so that it influences the entity profile one eighth as much as a conversation that is one day old. In another example, the weight of a conversation is reduced by half every N (e.g., ten) days.

In some embodiments, the conversation server 700 determines (2068) whether there are any additional conversations that are associated with the entity. If there are (2068) more conversations, then the conversation server 700 selects (2054) a new conversation associated with the entity and repeats the process described above. In some embodiments, if there are not (2070) any more conversations, then the conversation server 700 normalizes the entity profile. In some embodiments the entity profile is normalized such that the sum of the square of the elements of the entity profile is equal to a fixed value (e.g., 1). In other words, if the entity profile is a vector in term space, where term space includes the predictive terms for a particular user (as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 17E), an L2 normalization can be used to normalize the entity vector (e.g., the elements of the vector are divided by the magnitude of the vector, so as to produce a vector with a length of one in term space).

The conversation server 700 stores (2074) the entity profile in the user profile database, as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 18A. The conversation server 700 determines whether there are any more entities for which a profile should be generated. If there are (2076) more entities for which the conversation server 700 determines that a profile should be generated, then the conversation server 700 selects (2052) one of these entities and repeats the process described above for generating an entity profile. If there are not (2078) any more entities to generate a profile for, then the conversation is done (2080) generating entity profiles.

In some embodiments, the entity profiles for a respective user are periodically rebuilt from scratch on a predetermined schedule that is set in accordance with profile generation policies (e.g., 772 in FIG. 16). In some embodiments, the profile generation policies also include information indicative of the number of terms to use to generate entity profiles, and/or the number of entity profiles to generate. In some embodiments the predetermined schedule is based on how often the entity profiles are likely to change. If changes are more frequent, then the entity profiles are re-generated more frequently, while if changes are less frequent, then the entity profiles are re-generated less frequently. In another example, a new user will typically have more frequent updates than a user who has been using the conversation system for a long time. Similarly, a user with a high level of new activity (e.g., a large number of new conversations or deleted conversations) will be scheduled to have her entity profiles re-generated. In some embodiments, all of the entity profiles for a particular user are re-generated at the same time (e.g., in response to the same initiating event).

Attention is now directed towards FIG. 17C which illustrates a method for generating (2024) a conversation profile in accordance with some embodiments. The conversation profile is based on information including content of the conversation. In some embodiments, the conversation profile is also based on user-specific term weights for at least a plurality of terms in the content of the conversation. The conversation server 700 accesses (2082) a currently active conversation in which the user is a participant (e.g., the conversation that was edited by the user (2016 in FIG. 17A). In some embodiments the conversation server selects (2084) a predictive term in the conversation. In some embodiments, the predictive term is selected from a plurality of predictive terms (e.g., a subset of terms in the conversations associated with the user) that are identified based on predefined criteria, as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 17E.

In some embodiments the conversation server 700 counts (2086) the occurrences of the predictive term in the conversation. In some embodiments, the occurrences of the predictive term are weighted (2087) based on internal structure of the conversation as discussed in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 17F. In some embodiments, the term count is discounted (2088) so that the first occurrence of the term is given greater weight than subsequent occurrences of the term (e.g., logarithmic discounting), as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 18B. In some embodiments the discounted term count is adjusted (2090) using a term weight that is stored in the user profile. The term weight is a context-independent weight that is indicative of the importance of the term to the user. In other words, a term that occurs frequently in conversations in which the user is a participant will have a higher weight than a term that occurs less frequently in conversations in which the user is a participant. In some embodiments an inverse document frequency metric is used, so that the term weight is based on (e.g., inversely proportional to, or inversely related to) the percentage of the user's conversations in which the term appears (as opposed to the number of times that the term is used in all of the conversations associated with the user). In some embodiments the term weight is based on the number of times that the term is used in at least a subset of the conversations associated with the user.

It should be understood that, in accordance with some embodiments, these term weights are user-specific term weights. In other words, a plurality of participants each have respective user profiles, and have respective user-specific term weights for one or more terms in the user profile. Thus, in some embodiments, the conversation has at least a second participant in addition to the user, and the second participant has a second conversation profile for the conversation that is based on respective term weights, for a plurality of respective terms, specific to the second participant. Additionally, it should be understood that any number of participants could be associated with a conversation, each having a respective set of user-specific term weights that are stored in a user profile for the user. Consequently, when conversation profiles are generated for the conversation for multiple different participants, a first conversation profile for a first participant is different from a second conversation profile for a second participant, because the first conversation profile would be based on a first set of user-specific term weights while the second conversation profile would be based on a second set of user-specific term weights that are distinct from the first set of user-specific term weights.

Additionally, in some embodiments, the predictive terms for the first user (e.g., as selected in accordance with FIG. 17E) are distinct from the predictive terms for the second user. In this embodiment, the conversation profile for the first user would be distinct from the conversation profile for the second user not only because the user-specific term weights for the first user are distinct from the user-specific term weights for the second user, but also because the conversation profile for the first user would includes terms from the conversation profile that are not included in the conversation profile for the second user. Consequently, although the first user and the second user are both participants in the same conversation, which has a single set of content, the conversation profile for the first user is generated based at least in part on user-specific criteria that is specific to the first user, and thus is distinct from the conversation profile for the second user, which is generated based at least in part on user-specific criteria that is specific to the second user.

After discounting the term count and adjusting the discounted term count for the selected term, if the conversation server 700 server determines that there are (2092) additional predictive terms to evaluate, then the conversation server 700 selects (2084) one of the remaining predictive terms and repeats the process described above. However, if the conversation server 700 determines that there are not (2094) any additional predictive terms in the conversation for which occurrences are to be counted, then the conversation server normalizes (2096) the conversation profile. In some embodiments the conversation profile is normalized such that the sum of the squared elements of the conversation profile equal a fixed value. In other words, if the conversation profile is a vector in term space, where term space includes the predictive terms discussed above, an L2 normalization can be used to normalize the conversation vector (e.g., the vector are divided by the magnitude of the vector, so as to produce a vector with a length of one in term space).

In some embodiments the conversation profile is stored (2098) in the conversation profile database as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 18C. It should be understood that in some embodiments, the conversation profile is cached in a cache rather than being stored in a database. Alternatively, in some embodiments, the conversation profile is generated on-the-fly for use by the conversation server 700, and when (and if) the conversation profile is needed again, the conversation server 700 generates a new conversation profile. Generating conversation profiles on-the-fly is particularly important in cases where the conversation is being actively edited by the user while the entity suggestions are concurrently being generated. As the user or other participants edit the conversation, the content of the conversation may change dramatically, and thus the old conversation profiles are obsolete and are more likely to return inaccurate entity suggestions. After determining that there are no more predictive terms to select (2094) and (optionally) storing the conversation profile (2098), the server is done (2100) generating a conversation profile.

Attention is now directed towards FIG. 17D which illustrates a method for comparing at least a subset of entity profiles to the conversation profile. In some embodiments the conversation server 700 obtains (2102) the conversation profile. In some embodiments, the conversation server selects (2104) an entity profile (for a respective entity) that includes at least one term in the conversation. For example, if the entity profile for “Barry” does not include any of the terms in a conversation that Anne is editing, the entity profile for “Barry” will not be selected for comparison.

In some embodiments, the conversation server 700 calculates (2106) a similarity score between the entity profile and the conversation profile. In some embodiments, the conversation profile and the entity profile each include a plurality of terms. As described above with reference to FIG. 17B, the entity profile has a plurality of elements, each element associated with a respective term and having a value that corresponds to a number of instances of the respective term in the set of conversations that are associated with both the user and the entity. Similarly, the conversation profile has a plurality of elements, where each element in the conversation profile is associated with a respective term and corresponds to a number of instances of the respective term in the conversation, as described in greater detail above with reference to FIG. 17C. In some embodiments, the entity profile and the conversation profile can each be treated as a vector in term space, where each term is a dimension of the term space, and the term space includes all of the predictive terms identified by the conversation server 700, as described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 17E. In this embodiment, calculating (2106) the similarity score between the entity profile and the conversation profile includes calculating (2110) a dot product of the entity vector of the respective entity profile with the conversation vector of the conversation profile (i.e., the sum of the term-wise products of the elements of two vectors). While the illustrative examples use a particular technique for calculating the similarity score, it should be understood that other techniques for comparing vectors (such as cosine similarity) may be used in addition to or as an alternative to the specifically disclosed techniques.

In some embodiments the similarity score is stored (2112) at the conversation server. If there are (2114) additional entities with entity profiles to compare with the conversation profile, then the conversation server 700 selects (2104) one of the remaining entity profiles and repeats the process described above. If there are not (2116) any more entity profiles to compare with the conversation profile, then the process is done (2118).

In an alternative embodiment, the conversation server 700 identifies one or more of the predictive terms in the conversation vector. For each predictive term in the conversation vector, the conversation server identifies the entities with entity profiles that include the term. In some embodiments the entity profiles are grouped by the terms that they contain to increase the speed and efficiency of this identification process. The conversation server then combines (e.g., multiplies) the element in the conversation profile with an element in each of the entity profiles that corresponds to the same term and stores the result for each entity profile as a comparison value associated with each entity. Once this process has been completed for each entity profile that contains an element associated with the predictive term, the conversation server iterates to a next predictive term in the conversation profile. For the next predictive term, the same process is to combine the conversation profile element with the corresponding entity profile element of the entity profiles that correspond to the same term. The resulting comparison value is added to a running total for the entity profile. Once all of the predictive terms in the conversation profile have been iterated through by the conversation server 700, the conversation server 700 determines rankings of the entities based at least in part on the total of the comparison values for each of the entities. It should be noted that this process produces a result that is equivalent to the computation of a dot product between each of the entity profiles and the conversation profile (where the entity profiles and conversation profile are vectors in term space), however the process described in this paragraph is more computationally efficient, because entity profiles that share no predictive terms with the conversation profile are not compared with the conversation profile, and because only the elements of the entity profiles that match elements of the conversation profile are used.

In some embodiments, after the subset of entity profiles have been compared (2028) with the conversation profile, the conversation server 700 generates (2030) a suggestion including a suggested entity from the identified set of entities. In some embodiment, entities that are already present in the conversation are excluded (2120) from consideration. In some embodiments, generating the suggestion includes ranking (2122) the entities based on the computed similarity scores. For example, if the conversation profile for Anne's conversation and the entity profile for “Barry” have the highest similarity score, while the conversation profile and the entity profile for “Carrie” have the second highest similarity score, and the conversation profile and the entity profile for “Tahoe” have the third highest score, then the entities will be ranked as follows: 1) Barry, 2) Carrie, 3) Tahoe.

In some embodiments, the rank is also determined at least in part by a non-similarity score component (e.g., a non-contextual affinity score of the entity.). Thus, continuing the example above, if Anne has been a participant (e.g., participated) in 10 conversations with Barry, 1 conversation with Carrie and 15 conversations with the tag “Tahoe,” then the entities may be ranked as follows: 1) Barry, 2) Tahoe, 3) Carrie. In this example, the affinity score is based on the frequency of use of the entity by the user and the contextual score is based on the comparison between the entity profile and the conversation profile. In the example, these two scores are combined to determine the overall rank of the entity.

In some embodiments, the conversation server suggests (2126) a subset of the entities (e.g., Barry, Tahoe and Carrie) based on the comparison. In some embodiments the subset of the entities includes suggesting (2128) the top N entities from the ranked list of entities. Returning to the example from above, Anne's list of entities may also include additional labels/folders (e.g., “family,” “work,”), contacts (“Edgar,” “Frank,” and “Susan”) and tags (e.g., “California,” “Fishing”), however these entities are not included in the suggested subset of entities, because they are not in the top N entities (e.g., the top three entities). In some embodiments entities that are already present in the conversation are included in the initial ranking but are excluded from the suggestions. Continuing the example from above, if only the top three entities are to be suggested and Barry is already a participant in the conversation, then Tahoe, Carrie and a fourth ranked entity (e.g., “family”) are suggested, rather than suggesting Barry, Tahoe and Carrie. While the foregoing example is given with respect to entities that include both contacts and categorization entities (e.g., labels, folders and tags), it should be understood that in some embodiments, the entities include only participants (e.g., contacts and/or automated participants), while in other embodiments the entities include only categorization entities such as labels, folders and tags.

In some embodiments, the ranked list of suggested entities is a contact list displayed on the side of a user interface (e.g., a web-based communication program). In this embodiment, displaying the suggestions may include reordering the list of contacts in the contact list or in an address book.

Attention is now directed towards FIG. 17E which illustrates a method for identifying (2050) a plurality of predictive terms for a particular user (or user account) in accordance with some embodiments. In some embodiments a term is relevant if it is highly predictive of whether a respective entity should be suggested for a conversation (e.g., whether the term is highly relevant to the prediction of whether a user will choose to associate the entity with the conversation). In other words, in some embodiments, generating the entity profile for a respective entity includes considering only a subset of the content of the respective conversation, wherein the subset is selected based on predefined criteria.

In some embodiments, as a preliminary step the conversation server 700 identifies (2130) entities in the conversations associated with the user (i.e., entities in historical conversations, stored in the conversation database, in which the user is a participant). In some embodiments the identified entities include one or more contacts (2132). In some other embodiments, the identified entities include categorization entities (2133) such as a label/folder (2134) and/or user created metadata such as a tag (2136). In other words, in these embodiments, the identified entities are metadata that is used to sort and categorize conversations and do not include contacts or participants in the conversation. In some other embodiments, the identified entities include both contacts and categorization entities. In some embodiments the conversation server preselects (2138) a subset of the entities based on one or more of the following criteria: the entity occurs (2140) more than a minimum number of times (e.g., Barry is a contact in at least two conversations associated with Anne), the entity occurs (2142) in more than a threshold percentage of conversations (e.g., Barry is a contact in at least 5% of the conversations associated with Anne), and/or the entity is in (2144) the top N most frequently used entities (e.g., Barry is one of the top 100 participants in conversations associated with Anne). In some embodiments, this preselecting process is used to improve the accuracy of entity suggestions by identifying (or excluding) entities for which predictions are likely to be inaccurate. For example, this process helps to remove any entities for which there is not sufficient information about the entity to accurately predict when the user is likely to choose to associate the entity with a conversation.

In some embodiments, after preselecting the subset of entities, the conversation server 700 evaluates the frequency of use of the selected entities by the user. In some embodiments this frequency of use of selected entities is evaluated based on whether the entity is associated with a conversation rather than the number of occurrences of the entity in the conversation. The result value, sometimes called an affinity score, is a measure of the importance of the entity to the user. In other words, an entity that is frequently used by the user is more likely to be the entity that the user would like to associate with a conversation. Thus, a frequently used entity is given a higher affinity score than a less frequently used entity. In some embodiments, the affinity score for each entity is based on the fraction of total conversations where the entity is present. In some embodiments the affinity score is based on the user's implicit social graph. In some embodiments, the affinity score is discounted exponentially in order to reduce the effect of the affinity scores on the selection of entity suggestions. In one example, the affinity score is set equal to the square root of the percentage of conversations in which the entity occurs. Thus an entity found in 50 percent of all conversations will have an affinity score of about 0.7, while an entity found in 65 percent of all conversation scores will have an affinity score of about 0.8. Smaller exponents than 0.5, such as 0.3 or 0.2, can be used to further discount the affinity score.

In accordance with some embodiments, after preselecting the subset of entities, the conversation server 700 statistically identifies (2148) predictive terms in the conversations associated with the user. A predictive term for an entity is a term that increases the likelihood that the entity will be associated with a conversation that includes the predictive term (as compared with the likelihood that the entity will be associated with a conversation that does not include the predictive term). It should be understood that the predictiveness of a term is not directly correlated with its frequency. For example, the word “and,” will be present in a large percentage of conversations. However the word “and” is not predictive of what entity a user will associate with a conversation. In contrast, the word “Tahoe” is not a commonly used word, and thus it is likely that if the word “Tahoe” is used in a conversation, then the user is more likely to want to include skiing buddies as contacts, labels such as “vacation,” and tags such as “skiing” or “hiking” with the conversation. However, these preferences are not explicitly set by a user. Rather, using the method described herein, predictive terms are statistically identified and then used by the conversation server 700 to analyze previous conversations, as described in greater detail above with reference to FIG. 17A.

In some embodiments, in order to identify predictive terms, the conversation server 700 determines (2150) a desired number of predictive terms. This desired number of predictive terms may be a maximum number that the conversation server 700 can efficiently store and process for any user (e.g., 1000) or it may be based on the number of terms necessary to achieve a predefined level of predictiveness. For example, a user who has an account that is used for personal use only may have 200 contacts and 100 labels, and in this case, only 400 terms may be necessary to provide the user with accurate entity suggestions. A different user who has an account that is used for business and personal use may have 1500 contacts and 500 labels and may require 1000 or even more terms in order to provide the user with accurate entity suggestions. Rules for determining the desired number of predictive terms are included in the profile generation parameters.

In some embodiments, after determining the desired number of predictive terms, the conversation server 700 selects (2152) a term that appears in the conversations. In some embodiments the term is (2154) a word in a conversation. In some embodiments, the term is (2156) an entity (e.g., a contact, label, tag, etc., as described previously). In some embodiments a term is (2158) a type of attachment associated with a conversation (e.g., a pdf, image, text file, spreadsheet, video file, executable file, slideshow, etc.). The conversation server applies (2160) a heuristic to the selected term to determine some measure of the predictiveness of the selected term. In some embodiments the heuristic evaluates the term by identifying how predictive the term is for each of at least a subset of the entity values. A measure of the predictiveness (herein a “heuristic value” for a term) is stored at least temporarily (e.g., in a cache or other data structure). In some embodiments the heuristic is an “information gain” heuristic, which measures the reduction in uncertainty about whether to associate the entity with a conversation when the presence/absence (or the number of instances of) the term in the conversation is known. If uncertainty in associating an entity with a conversation is reduced when the presence/absence (or number of instances of) a term is known, then the term is predictive for that entity.

Once the heuristic has been applied to the term for each of a subset of the entities, the conversation server 700 determines if there are more terms to evaluate for predictiveness. If there are (2162) more term, then the conversation server 700 selects a next term that appears in the conversation and repeats the process described above for the next term. If there are not (2164) any more terms to evaluate for predictiveness, the conversation server 700 selects (2166) the most predictive terms from the set of evaluated terms based on the heuristic values. In some embodiments terms are selected based on their overall predictiveness as indicated by the heuristic values. In some embodiments terms are selected based on a plurality of criteria which take into account both the overall predictiveness of the term and the predictiveness of terms for less popular entities (i.e., entities which are not the top 50 entities most frequently associated with conversations in which the user is a participant). In some embodiments a plurality of heuristic values are produced for each term (e.g., one heuristic value for each entity that is associated with a conversation containing the term). For example, it may be advantageous to select predictive terms which are highly predictive of the tag “skiing,” even though “skiing” is only a tag on 1% of the user's conversations, because the presence of a term (e.g., the word “Tahoe”) in a conversation is very highly predictive of whether the user will associate the tag “skiing” with the conversation. Thus, two or more criteria may be used to select the most predictive terms, a first criteria (based on a first heuristic value), which evaluates the overall predictiveness of a particular term and a second criteria (based on a second heuristic value), which evaluates the predictiveness of the term for entities of the N most popular entities (e.g., the top 50, or the top 20% entities) in the user's conversations.

After selecting the most predictive terms, the conversation server 700 determines (2168) term weights for each of the selected predictive terms. In some embodiments, the term weights are determined based on a non-contextual criteria such as the frequency with which the term is associated with conversations in which the user is a participant. In some embodiments, each term has a default term weight (e.g., 1), which is adjusted by the conversation server 700. In some embodiments a term which does not have a weight is presumed to have a weight of 1.

In some embodiments, as discussed in greater detail above with reference to FIG. 17A, the conversation server 700 accesses a conversation in which a user is a participant, obtaining a conversation profile for the conversation, where the conversation profile is based on information including content of the conversation. The conversation server 700 also accesses a plurality of entity profiles corresponding to the user; compares at least a subset of the entity profiles to the conversation profile to identify a set of entities having entity profiles that best match the conversation profile; generates a suggestion including a suggested entity from the identified set of entities; and sends the suggestion to the client system for display. In some embodiments, each entity profile corresponds to a respective entity in other conversations in which the user is a participant and is based on an internal structure of content in those other conversations. Stated another way, in some embodiments the entity profile is based on metrics of the user's interaction with respective portions of the content in respective conversations that include the entity and in which the user is a participant.

Attention is now directed towards FIG. 17F, which illustrates a method for adjusting the weight of content in a respective conversation based on an internal structure of content in the respective conversation. It should be understood that, in some embodiments the weight of content in a plurality of respective conversations is adjusted (e.g., when generating an entity profile, as described above in greater detail with reference to FIG. 17B), while in other embodiments the weight of content in a single respective conversation is adjusted (e.g., when generating a conversation profile for a single conversation, as described above in greater detail with reference to FIG. 17C). It should also be understood that, in some embodiments the weight of content is used to adjust term counts, as illustrated in FIGS. 17B and 17C. However, in other embodiments, the weight of content is used to generate entity profiles and conversation profiles in other ways (e.g., by generating the entity/conversation profiles using only content that has a weight above a predefined threshold).

In some embodiments, the conversation server 700 identifies (2170) a subset of the conversation. For example, the subset can be a content contribution (2172). A content contribution can be a content unit (e.g., a segment of text entered by a user such as an email or an instant message), or a report, meeting agenda, pictures, presentations, audio files, video files, or virtually any other type of electronic document, as described in greater detail above. In another example, the identified subset of the content is (2174) a term (e.g., a single word or group of characters without any intervening white space characters such as spaces or periods).

In some embodiments, after identifying the subset, the conversation server 700 identifies (2176) features that indicate a strong connection between the user and the subset. In some embodiments, the respective entity represents (2178) a contact of the user; and the internal structure of the respective other conversation indicates (2180) the strong connection (e.g., a strong connection between the user and the subset of content) when the subset of the respective other conversation includes one or more of: a contribution (2182) by the contact to content that was created by the user, a contribution (2184) by the user to content that was created by the contact, and content that was concurrently edited (2186) by the user and the contact.

In other words, in some embodiments, an occurrence of a term in a subset of the conversation (e.g., a blip or content unit of the conversation) that was written in direct response to a subset of the conversation that was contributed by the user is more likely to be relevant and thus is weighted more heavily than the same term in a part of the conversation where the user is only a passive participant. Similarly, in some embodiments the number of conversation contributions positioned between the term and the last conversation contribution by the user is used as a metric to weight the occurrences of a term when counting the occurrences of that term. For example if Anne adds a conversation contribution to a conversation and Bob responds to Anne's conversation contribution, the terms in Bob's conversation contribution will be given greater weight than a subset of the conversation that is remote from the subset that includes Anne and Bob's respective contributions.

It should be understood, that in some embodiments, the internal structure of a conversation also indicates a strong connection between the user and the subset of the conversation that is entity-specific. As one example, take a conversation that includes three participants, Anne, Bob and Carol, and includes a respective subset that was concurrently edited by Anne and Bob, but which Carol has not edited. When the conversation server 700 generates an entity profile for the entity “Anne” in a user-account for Bob, the respective subset that was concurrently edited by Anne and Bob is strongly connected with both Bob and Anne, and therefore is weighted very heavily in generating an entity profile for the entity “Anne.” In other words, this concurrently edited respective subset is likely to contain terms that Anne and Bob use when talking to each other, and thus is likely to be predictive of when the entity “Anne” should be associated with one of Bob's conversations. In contrast, when generating an entity profile for the entity “Carol” in the user-account for Bob, the respective subset that was concurrently edited by Anne and Bob is only strongly associated with Bob, and thus is not weighted as heavily in generating an entity profile for the entity “Carol” as it would have been in generating an entity profile for the entity “Anne.” In other words, this concurrently edited respective subset is less likely to be predictive of when the entity “Carol” should be associated with one of Bob's conversations, because Carol did not participate in the respective subset. However, it should be understood, that even though the respective subset that was concurrently edited by Bob and Anne is not strongly related to “Carol,” the content of this respective subset may still have a greater weight than a predefined normal weight because Bob has contributed to this respective subset and therefore it is likely relevant to Bob. In other words, even though Carol did not participate in creating the respective subset, the respective subset still contains terms that are important to Bob in a conversation in which Carol is a participant and therefore may be predictive of when the entity “Carol” should be associated with a conversation.

In some embodiments, when the entity is a categorization entity (e.g., metadata such as a tag, a label or an assigned folder), the internal structure of the conversation indicates a strong connection between the user and the metadata (e.g., a tag) when the tag or other metadata is applied to a “private” sub-conversation (see discussion above concerning FIG. 3A) in which the user is a participant; when the tag or other metadata is applied to text in the conversation contributed by the user; and when the tag or other metadata is added to the conversation by the user.

In some embodiments, the internal structure of the respective other conversation indicates (2192) a strong connection to the user when the subset of the respective other conversation includes one or more of: content added (2194) by the user; content edited (2196) by the user; a response (2198) from another participant to content added by the user; and recently added (2200) content. For example, in some embodiments a conversation is generated by adding and editing subunits over an extended period of time (e.g., a period of days, weeks or months). In such embodiments, a subunit that was added or edited in the last day has greater weight than a subunit that was added or edited more than three weeks ago. It should be understood that these metrics of internal structure of the conversation may be used separately or in combination.

In some embodiments, when the internal structure of content of one of the respective other conversations indicates (2202) a stronger connection between the user and a subset of the respective conversation than for other subsets of the respective conversation (e.g., as described in greater detail above), the conversation server 700 gives (2204) greater weight than a predefined normal weight to content in the subset of the conversation. In some embodiments, when the conversation server 700 is generating an entity profile, as described in greater detail above with reference to FIG. 17B, the conversation server 700 generates an entity profile for the respective entity by giving greater weight than a predefined normal weight to content in the subset of the respective other conversation having the stronger connection to the user than content in subsets of one or more other conversations that are also associated with the entity. In some embodiments, when the conversation server 700 is generating a conversation profile, as described in greater detail above with reference to FIG. 17C, the conversation server 700 generates a conversation profile for the respective conversation by giving greater weight than a predefined normal weight to content in the subset of the respective conversation having a strong connection to the user than to content in other subsets of the same conversation. In other words, in embodiments where entity/conversation profiles are generated based on a term count, when the internal structure of the respective conversation indicates a strong connection between the user and a subset of the conversation, the counted occurrences of terms in the subset of the conversation are given greater weight than a predefined normal weight.

In some embodiments, when the internal structure of content of one of the respective other conversations does not indicate (2206) a stronger connection between the user and a subset of the respective other conversation than for other subsets of the other conversation, the conversation server 700 maintains the predefined normal weight of content in the subset of the respective conversation.

It should be understood that in some embodiments the entity/conversation profile is normalized, so that there is no difference between increasing the weights of some terms and, alternatively, increasing the weights of some terms while decreasing the weights of other terms. However, in some embodiments, when the internal structure of the respective conversation indicates a weak connection between the user and a subset of the conversation, the counted occurrences of terms in the subset of the conversation are given less weight than the predefined normal weight. For example, terms in conversation contribution unrelated to the entity are given a half count, while terms in conversation contributions somewhat related to the entity are given a single count and terms in conversation contributions highly related to the entity are given a double count.

In some embodiments, the conversation server 700 repeats the process for a plurality of subsets of the respective conversation. In other words, when the conversation server 700 determines that there are (2208) more subsets of the respective conversation to examine, the conversation server 700 selects a new subset from the same conversation and repeats the process described above. In contrast, when the conversation server 700 determines that there are (2210) not any more subsets to examine, the subset weighting process ends (2212) for the respective conversation. It should be understood that other processes could also be performed to adjust the entity/conversation profile, as described in greater detail above with reference to FIGS. 5B-5C. Additionally, it should be understood that the process could be repeated for one or more additional respective conversations, as described in greater detail above with reference to FIG. 5B.

It should be understood that one of the advantages of conversations as disclosed herein is that the internal structure of the conversations is directly observable by each participant and thus no historical information is required. Instead, the conversations themselves already include metadata indicative of editing information and response information which is available to each participant in the conversation. Thus, there is no need to look at logs or other historical/archived data, because the metadata of the conversation can be directly examined to determine if two users were collaboratively editing the conversation or if one subset of the conversation (e.g., conversation contribution) was added in response to another subset of the conversation (e.g., conversation contribution). In other words, due to the structure of the conversation, responses to a portion of the content are directly observable, because conversations include a nested reply structure. Moreover, information that indicates even closer coupling of the responses of participants is available in the form of metadata identifying one or more collaboratively edited subsets of the conversation. For example, metadata identifying a subset of the conversation that was collaboratively edited by a group of two or more participants at approximately the same time indicates, for a respective participant of the group, a connection between the content of the subset and the other participants in the group that is stronger than a connection between the content of the subset and participants in the conversation that are not in the group (i.e., who did not collaboratively edit the subset of the conversation with the respective participant).

Attention is now directed towards FIG. 18A, which is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary user profile database 768 in accordance with some embodiments. The user profile database 768 includes profiles 2230 for a plurality of distinct users. Each user profile includes one or more entity IDs 2232, and a plurality of additional terms 2238. Each entity ID 2232 is associated with an affinity score 2234 and an entity profile 2236. Each additional term 2238 is associated with a term weight 2240. Affinity scores 2234 are determined on a per-user basis and indicate the non-contextual importance of the entity to the user. For example if a user has a tag that appears on 50% of his conversations, then that entity will have a high affinity score, while a contact that has been a participant in 5% of the user's conversations will have a relatively low affinity score. Terms 2238 are selected on a per-user basis, as described in greater detail above with reference to FIG. 17E, and term weights 2240 are determined on a per-user basis and indicate the non-contextual importance of the term to the user. For example, a term that appears in more conversations in which the user is a participant will have a higher term weight.

In some embodiments an entity profile 2236 includes a vector in term space, where a context weight is computed for each of the terms in the user's profile. For example, the profile 2230-2 of user 2 includes terms 1-term X and therefore, the entity vector 2239 for entity 2 includes context weights for each of term 1-term X. In some embodiments, the vector is a sparse entity vector 2241, and thus includes only terms for which the context weights are nonzero. A context weight for a term in an entity vector associated with an entity are calculated based on the number of occurrences of the respective term in conversations with which the entity is associated, as described in greater detail above with reference to FIG. 17B. An exemplary formula for calculating context weights is described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 18B. FIG. 18A shows highly simplified context weights for purposes of illustration; these context weights do not take into account the adjustments identified in FIG. 18B.

Attention is now directed towards FIG. 18B, which includes an exemplary formula for calculating context weights for an entity profile in accordance with some embodiments. The context weight for a term (e.g., “Context weight (term 2)”) is equal to the sum for conversation 1-conversation z of a value calculated for each conversation. For a respective conversation (“conversation i”) in the conversation, the number of occurrences of the term (e.g., term 2) is counted (e.g., “term 2 count”). If the count is zero, then the context weight is set to zero. If the count is greater than or equal to 1, and the count is logarithmically discounted (e.g., “1+log₂ (term 2 count)). (It should be understood that other methods for discounting subsequent occurrences of a term beyond the first could be used; the log base 2 discounting is merely exemplary; logarithms other than base 2 and other discounting functions could also be used). The discounted term count is combined with a term weight (e.g., “term 2 weight”) for the term, and then normalized (e.g., “Norm( )”) with the rest of the conversation vector, as described previously with reference to FIG. 17B. The normalized, weighted, logarithmically adjusted term count is then adjusted by the age of the conversation (e.g., “age adjustment for conversation i”), as described previously with reference to FIG. 17B. The sum of these values over all of the conversations is equal to the context weight for the term in the entity vector.

It should be understood that the process of determining context weights for the terms in a set of entity vectors is completed on a per-user basis. Additionally, in some embodiments, the context weights for the terms in all of the entity profiles for all of the entities in the user profile are generated in a single operation (i.e., the user's entire profile is rebuilt at once, and is not incrementally updated). In some embodiments this set of entity profiles 2236 and affinity scores 2234 is called a model for the user. It should be understood that in accordance with some embodiments, there are no global evaluations of terms, rather terms are evaluated on a per-user basis. Thus, in these embodiments, the user profile of each user is completely self-contained and is not influenced by conversations in which the user is not a participant.

Attention is now directed towards FIG. 18C, which illustrates a conversation profile database 770 in accordance with some embodiments. The conversation profiles are generated on a per-user basis. In some embodiments a conversation profile 2236, for use by the conversation server 700 to compare with the entity profiles for a user, includes a vector in term space, where a context weight is computed for each of the terms (e.g., term 1-term X 2238) in the user's profile. In some embodiments, each conversation profile 2242 includes a conversation vector 2244 or a sparse conversation vector 2246. For example, conversation profile 2 is generated by the conversation server to compare with the entity profiles for user 2 (2230-2 in FIG. 18A), where user 2 has a profile that includes a set of terms, term 1-term X, and therefore the conversation vector 2244 for a conversation being edited by the user (e.g., for conversation profile 2) includes context weights for each of term 1-term X. In some embodiments, the vector is a sparse context vector 2246, and thus includes only terms for which the context weights are nonzero. A context weight for a term in a conversation vector 2244 associated with a conversation in which the user is a participant is calculated based on the number of occurrences of the respective term in conversation, as described in greater detail above with reference to FIG. 17C. An exemplary formula for calculating context weights for a conversation is described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 18D.

In some embodiments the conversation profile database 770 is a cache, and conversation profiles 2242 are only temporarily stored in the cache before being updated or purged from the cache.

Attention is now directed towards FIG. 18D, which includes an exemplary formula for calculating context weights for a conversation profile in accordance with some embodiments. In some embodiments, the context weight for a term in a conversation (e.g., “Context weight (term 1)”) is based on a logarithmically discounted count of the occurrences of a term in the conversation. The number of occurrences of the term (e.g., term 1) is counted (e.g., “term 1 count”). If the count is zero, then the context weight is set to zero. If the count is greater than or equal to 1, and the count is logarithmically discounted (e.g., “1+log₂ (term 1 count)). It should be understood that other methods for discounting subsequent occurrences of a term beyond the first could be used. The log base 2 discounting is merely exemplary, and thus logarithms other than base 2 and other discounting functions could also be used. The discounted term count is combined with a term weight (e.g., “term 1 weight”) for the term from the user profile of the user who is participating in the conversation (e.g., 2240-1 in FIG. 18A) to produce the context weight for the term.

It should be understood that this process of generating a conversation profile is completed on a per-user basis. In other words, for a conversation with a plurality of participants, a conversation profile generated with respect to a first participant would be different than a conversation profile generated with respect to a second participant, because the set of terms (e.g., term 1-term X 2238 in FIG. 18C) that are used to generate the conversation profile and the set of term weights (e.g., 2240 in FIG. 18A) are specific to each user. In some embodiments, one or more of the conversations include private content units (e.g., private blips or private replies), and thus the specificity is due at least in part to the fact that different users have different views of the conversation. For example if user A, user B and user C are all participants in a conversation, and user A and user B are participants in a private content unit (e.g., a “private reply”) within the conversation that does not include user C as a participant, then the terms in the private content unit are used to generate entity profiles and the conversation profile for the conversation for user A and user B, while the terms in the private content unit are not used to generate entity profiles and the conversation profile for user C (e.g., because user C cannot “see” the private content unit). The conversation profile is compared with entity profiles as described in greater detail above with reference to FIGS. 17A and 17D.

The foregoing description, for purpose of explanation, has been described with reference to specific embodiments. However, the illustrative discussions above are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. Many modifications and variations are possible in view of the above teachings. The embodiments were chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention and its practical applications, to thereby enable others skilled in the art to best utilize the invention and various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. 

1. A method comprising: at a computing system having one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors so as to perform the method of: identifying an ongoing conversation including a first user and a second user, wherein both the first user and the second user are conversation participants; and in the conversation, the first user has delivered at least one message to the second user; generating, without user intervention, a conversation profile for the ongoing conversation based on (i) content of one or more messages in the ongoing conversation and (ii) user-specific term weights for at least a plurality of terms in the content of the one or more messages, wherein the user-specific term weights correspond to the first user; using content of other conversations in which the first user is a participant to generate user profiles of other users, wherein the user profiles are further individualized to the first user based on the user-specific term weights corresponding to the first user; comparing the generated user profiles to the generated conversation profile to identify a third user whose generated user profile matches the conversation profile to a threshold degree; generating, without user intervention, a suggestion for the first user to add the third user to the ongoing conversation; and formatting the suggestion for display to the first user.
 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, without user intervention, a suggestion for a file to be included as part of the ongoing conversation in accordance with the content of the at least one instant message delivered to the second user.
 3. (canceled)
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is repeated in response to editing of the conversation by a participant in the conversation.
 5. (canceled)
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying a third user whose generated user profile matches the conversation profile set to a threshold degree includes calculating a similarity score between the user profile of the third user and the conversation profile.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein generating a user profile for a respective user comprises counting occurrences of at least one term in a plurality of conversations for which the first user and the respective user are participants.
 8. (canceled)
 9. The method of claim 7, wherein generating the user profile for the respective user includes: selecting a subset of conversations in which the first user is a participant so as to include only conversations associated with the respective user; and generating a user vector that includes a plurality of elements, wherein an element in the user vector is associated with a respective term and corresponds to a number of instances of the respective term in the set of conversations.
 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the conversation includes a plurality of terms, and wherein generating the conversation profile comprises: generating a conversation vector including a plurality of elements, wherein each element in the conversation vector is associated with a respective term and corresponds to a number of instances of the respective term in the conversation.
 11. The method of claim 10, wherein comparing a respective user profile to the conversation profile includes calculating a dot product of the user vector of the respective entity profile with the conversation vector.
 12. The method of claim 7, wherein generating the respective user profile includes evaluating a frequency of messages sent to the respective user from the first user.
 13. The method of claim 7, wherein generating the respective user profile includes evaluating a staleness metric with respect to conversations in which the respective user is present.
 14. (canceled)
 15. The method of claim 7, wherein a single term includes a first word and a second word, wherein the first word is a synonym of the second word.
 16. The method of claim 7, wherein counting occurrences includes adjusting the counted occurrences based on internal structure of a respective conversation of the plurality of conversations.
 17. The method of claim 16, further comprising: when the internal structure of the respective conversation indicates a strong connection between the respective user and the first user for a subset of the conversation, the counted occurrences of terms in the subset of the conversation are given greater weight than a predefined normal weight.
 18. The method of claim 17, wherein: the respective user represents a contact of the first user; and the internal structure of the respective conversation indicates a strong connection between the contact and the first user for a subset of the conversation when the subset of the conversation includes one or more of: a contribution by the contact to a subset of the respective conversation that was created by the first user, a contribution by the first user to a subset of the respective conversation created by the contact, and a subset of the conversation that was concurrently edited by the first user and the contact.
 19. A system, comprising: one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions to: identify an ongoing conversation including a first user and a second user, wherein both the first user and the second user are messaging participants; and in the message conversation, the first user has delivered at least one message to the second user; generate, without user intervention, a conversation profile for the ongoing conversation based on (i) content of one or more messages in the ongoing conversation and (ii) user-specific term weights for at least a plurality of terms in the content of the one or more messages, wherein the user-specific term weights correspond to the first user; use content of other conversations in which the first user is a participant to generate user profiles of other users, wherein the user profiles are further individualized to the first user based on the user-specific term weights corresponding to the first user; compare the generated user profiles to the generated conversation profile to identify a third user whose generated user profile matches the conversation profile to a threshold degree; generate, without user intervention, a suggestion for the first user to add the third user to the ongoing conversation; and format the suggestion for display to the first user.
 20. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium and one or more computer programs embedded therein, the one or more computer programs comprising instructions, which when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to: identify an ongoing conversation including a first user and a second user, wherein both the first user and the second user are messaging participants; and in the conversation, the first user has delivered at least one message to the second user; obtain, without user intervention, a conversation profile for the ongoing conversation based on (i) content of one or more messages in the ongoing conversation and (ii) user-specific term weights for at least a plurality of terms in the content of the one or more messages, wherein the user-specific term weights correspond to the first user; use content of other conversations in which the first user is a participant to generate user profiles of other users, wherein the user profiles are further individualized to the first user based on the user-specific term weights corresponding to the first user; compare the generated user profiles to the generated conversation profile to identify a third user whose generated user profile matches the conversation profile to a threshold degree; generate, without user intervention, a suggestion for the first user to add the third user to the ongoing conversation; and format the suggestion for display to the first user. 21-37. (canceled)
 38. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving selection of the suggestion by the first user; and in response to receiving the selection from the first user, adding the third user to the ongoing conversation. 